True, but while Texas' filing acknowledges fraud, the damage they claim is that the four states didn't follow their own rules, nor the rules of the constitution that legislature must be tasked to allow mail-in voting.
The fraud and irregularities just sets a basis for why mail-in voting and changing election laws shouldn't be done quickly and by someone other than legislature.
The fraud informs the constitutionality complaint.
The question is this: Did their disregard for the constitutional order of things change the outcome of the election. In Texas, no. In PA, you're darn tootin'
Fraud is necessary in this case, but isn't the sole subject of complaint. To sue, you must claim you've been damaged or your rights infringed. If the results of the election weren't changed due to fraud, no damage can be claimed.
But you don't need to argue proof of the fraud, just prove it COULD have occurred given the severe nature of the changes PA and others allowed.
That the changes were so egregious it could have allowed fraud to the scale it could have changed the election is the primary complaint, not the fraud in and of itself.
It's complicated and nit-picky, but that's how courts work.
This, the fraud is material to disenfranchisement of voters rights and the rights of the state of Texas. Texas shows that there was no interest in following law, securing legal votes, or upholding the constitution.
True, but while Texas' filing acknowledges fraud, the damage they claim is that the four states didn't follow their own rules, nor the rules of the constitution that legislature must be tasked to allow mail-in voting.
The fraud and irregularities just sets a basis for why mail-in voting and changing election laws shouldn't be done quickly and by someone other than legislature.
The fraud informs the constitutionality complaint.
The question is this: Did their disregard for the constitutional order of things change the outcome of the election. In Texas, no. In PA, you're darn tootin'
Fraud is necessary in this case, but isn't the sole subject of complaint. To sue, you must claim you've been damaged or your rights infringed. If the results of the election weren't changed due to fraud, no damage can be claimed.
But you don't need to argue proof of the fraud, just prove it COULD have occurred given the severe nature of the changes PA and others allowed.
That the changes were so egregious it could have allowed fraud to the scale it could have changed the election is the primary complaint, not the fraud in and of itself.
It's complicated and nit-picky, but that's how courts work.
This, the fraud is material to disenfranchisement of voters rights and the rights of the state of Texas. Texas shows that there was no interest in following law, securing legal votes, or upholding the constitution.