Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appeared on Fox News on Sunday and talked with Maria Bartiromo about the case the Supreme Court turned down on Friday, how in his view it disenfranchised the voters of Texas, and what’s next for the legal challenges to the 2020 election results.
Bartiromo asked Paxton about the court having said that Texas had no standing.
“If my people are harmed, which I view them as having been harmed by the fact that other states didn’t follow their election laws and didn’t follow the constitution, how do I address the fact that my voters are affected by a national election that potentially was not done correctly, where there was fraud, and that state law and federal law was not followed,” said Paxton. “I don’t know what else we could have done other than ask the court to at least hear our arguments.”
Explaining the rationale for the case, Paxton said that states are responsible for setting up laws “as it relates to electing electors,” and that when local officials deviate from those laws, they “violate state law and violated the constitution.”
“That in effect disenfranchises my voters, because we in Texas followed those laws,” and are now subjected to and affected by the results of potentially fraudulent or invalid results by those other states.
Bartiromo also asked about “Plan B.”
“I think the Trump campaign is taking our arguments that we tried to get in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, they are now going to take those state by state, because I think they are legitimately good, constitutional arguments that don’t depend on actually proving every little instance of fraud,” said Paxton.
Lefties think that’s big gaffe on his part, but that’s only because they aren’t smart. He had just explained that the states have made it impossible to go back, now, to verify votes and effectively made it impossible to prove fraud or mass invalidate votes. But he’s saying that their argument on the constitutionality of the various states like Pennsylvania essentially violating their own election laws doesn’t rest on being able to force those states into compliance or prove each and every ballot’s intrinsic value. Instead, the case rests on the very constitutionality of the overall conduct of the election in those states, based on the violation of the laws of those states by the states or by local authorities.
That’s not a gaffe. That’s a sound argument. And more than that it is an excellent argument for standing in the case of Texas, based on disenfranchisement.