Upper Peninsula Congressman Jack Bergman is giving his support to a lawsuit filed by the State of Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the results of the November presidential election.
“This week, I signed onto the Amicus Brief in support of State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. I didn’t come to this decision lightly or flippantly, and I didn’t make this decision based on emotion or even frustration with the election outcome. I came to this decision because trust in the very foundation of our Republic is at stake.
“Americans are losing faith in our systems, specifically our elections, at an alarming rate. I’ve heard from numerous constituents over the past four years, on all sides of the political spectrum, concerned about these very things – interference in elections by foreign entities, voting irregularities, failure by election officials to follow current laws in place, and lack of security in absentee voting.
“In this Amicus Brief, we outline multiple occasions where the state of Michigan – specifically the Secretary of State – subverted Michigan election law and constitutional precedent which in turn created a crisis of confidence in Michigan. Every American needs to know that every legal vote is counted – and only legal votes. This can only be achieved if those administering our elections are held to the highest standard. As with many elections in the past, our case deserves to be heard by the Supreme Court, and Michiganders deserve to know their concerns are being addressed.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has filed her response today with the U.S. Supreme Court to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit, which seeks to overturn the election results in Michigan and several other battleground states.
In her response, Nessel notes that the challenge by Texas is “an unprecedented one, without factual foundation and without a valid legal basis.”
“The base of Texas’s claims rests on an assertion that Michigan has violated its own election laws. Not true,” the filing states. “That claim has been repeatedly rejected in the federal and state courts in Michigan, and just yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch effort to request an audit. Not only is the complaint here meritless, but its jurisdictional flaws abound and provide solid ground to dispose of this action.”
Part of the jurisdictional flaw with this lawsuit is Texas’s end-around to the country’s traditional judicial process by filing its complaint directly with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Along with Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin were listed as defendants in the suit. All the defendant states had claims similar to those noted in Texas’s complaint brought in their respective federal and state appellate courts, and those claims have been soundly and summarily rejected.
“Trump and his ambassadors – like the Texas Attorney General – have used our court system to wage a disinformation campaign baselessly attacking the integrity of our election system. In addition to just spreading falsehoods on social media platforms, through media channels, and from seats positioned before our state legislatures, they’ve now done so at our country’s highest court,” Nessel said. “I am confident the Supreme Court will reject Texas’ bid to disenfranchise millions of Michigan voters and I am proud to represent the people of my state in defense of the very essence of our core democratic values. Michigan voters will decide the outcome of their elections, not Texas politicians. ”
False claims made against election officials in Michigan have varied from prohibiting Republican poll challengers from monitoring the counting of votes, to the legality of mail-in ballots cast and election fraud.
Comments