Previous posts in this discussion:
PostIt's Still Not Over: Texas Lawsuit Against PA, GA, MI, WI (George Aucoin, -France, 12/11/20 2:30 pm)
With all due respect to A. J. Cave (love her analytical approach) and Sir Paul Preston, discussion of this this noun "hack" when considering the US presidential election of 2020 artfully sidesteps the real issue before us.
Fraud is the actual subject of discussion, however distasteful. The problem with discussing hacking is that it obscures the discernible intent of the actor(s), whereas fraud does not. Fraud necessarily implies immoral, illegal intent and this is why I believe it has not heretofore been a topic of polite discussion on the WAIS network.
The basis for the incredulity of a Joe Biden win that simply will not go away is the appearance of massive coordinated electoral fraud. As in any criminal analysis, it follows that the Democratic Party had motive and opportunity. The evidence of actus reus is overwhelming in terms of firsthand observer testimony, video recordings of ballot counting rooms, electronic election machines and software having the programmed ability to fractionalize votes and, of course, the unprecedented ballot counting stoppage of four autonomous and independent US States--Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia--all within minutes of each other on election night followed by a resumption of counting in the wee hours in which the lead irrevocably changed hands. The missing element in this criminal analysis is proof of mens rea, or criminal intent. The obvious reason why the Republican Party isn't suspect of the same crime is:
--No dead people voted for Donald Trump
--No underage voters voted for Donald Trump
--No unregistered voters in the ballot receiving state voted for Donald Trump
--No illegal aliens (that's undocumented visitors to most of you) voted for Donald Trump
--No felons voted for Donald Trump
--No voters registered in more than one state voted for Donald Trump
--No electronic voting machines fractionalized votes in favor of Donald Trump
(For those of you aghast at the claims of this non-exclusive list--prove me wrong.)
The most recent election suit filed in this matter relies on no such analysis. State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Wisconsin and State of Michigan rests on the legal theory that the compact required by the US Constitution (Art. I Sect. 4) by the independent and autonomous US States require them to conduct their separate presidential elections based only upon the laws of their individual legislatures. Not decisions by their State Courts, not decisions by their State Governors or their Secretaries of State, but explicitly by their respective State Legislature only. The four-square complaint filed by Texas, and joined by at least 17 other US States, is that failure to convene an election under this constitutionally prescribed requirement disadvantages the voters in any compliant US State in a national election. Naturally, many US States (all with Biden majorities) have moved to dismiss the suit in solidarity with the defendant states.
Contentious right? Oh indeed. And consequential. The US Supreme Court cannot dodge this filing, the first on this matter in which it has original jurisdiction. Dismissing this complaint will not mollify some 74,000,000 voters in all 50 States. As everybody on WAIS has certainly surmised, this one is for all the marbles. That's why so many are holding their breath.
I'm not. The advance of the Left since the early 1960s--bigger, more brazen, and more outrageous every year--has finally come to this epic contest on the battlefield of American politics. Not to sound overly dramatic, but not since 1865 has the Nation's future turned on such an outcome. The individual inaugurated on Jan 20, 2021, Donald Trump or Joe Biden, will signify the success or failure of the United States as the oldest ongoing experiment in representative government and federalism.
JE comments: George, I found a map that breaks down the different state laws on voting rights. See below: you are correct that the two states (Maine and Vermont) that permit voting from prison went for Biden, but we can be confident it wasn't at 100%. And they have a combined total of just 7 electoral votes. So yes: some felons voted for Trump. Many states, red and blue alike, permit voting by felons after they serve their sentences (some before, some after parole/probation).
Could you give us a simpler explanation of the argument Texas is making to the Supreme Court? Are they saying that any state with election rules established by governors, courts, or Secretaries of State should have its results thrown out? Presumably, the four states in question would then allow the legislatures to decide, which conveniently all have Republican majorities.
Or if they don't get their way, at least one Texas official has a different solution: Texit: