106 GOP Members File Amicus Brief in Texas SCOTUS Election Lawsuit


A total of 106 House Republicans on Thursday filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs in Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al, including Tennessee’s U.S. Representatives Mark Green, Tim Burchett, Chuck Fleischmann, David Kustoff, and John Rose, with U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA-04) taking the lead.

U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN-07) tweeted, “100+ House Republicans and I have filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the Texas case. The election for the presidency of the United States is too important to not get right.”

U.S. Rep. John Rose (R-TN-06) tweeted, “We must protect the integrity of our elections, so I joined @RepMikeJohnson in sending a joint amicus brief to #SCOTUS in support of the petitioners in the case of TX v. PA.”

U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-04) on Thursday night posted on his Facebook page, “I agreed to sign the amicus brief draft yesterday, but was inadvertently omitted from the final draft today.  I still staunchly and firmly support it. I think a few of us were left off and the filing will be amended with our names added.”

Eighteen U.S. states filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the Texas lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results, American Greatness reported.

The Texas lawsuit is available here.

Joining the 105 congressmen was U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-05), who last week called for an investigation into attempts to register illegal voters in Georgia.

The amicus brief says, in part:

As members of the federal legislature, Amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in establishing the manner by which Presidential Electors are appointed to ensure the Electoral College selects the candidate for President of the United States that was chosen by counting only lawful votes. 

This brief amicus curiae presents the concern of amici as Members of Congress, shared by untold millions (sic) of their constituents, that the unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections.

Amici respectfully aver that the broad scope and impact of the various irregularities in the Defendant states necessitate careful and timely review by this Court.

On the merits, this amicus brief defends the constitutional authority of state legislatures as the only bodies duly authorized to establish the manner by which presidential electors are appointed, one of the central issues in the pending litigation. As members of the federal legislature, these amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in determining the manner by which states choose their electors.

The Framers of the United States Constitution provided that presidential electors be appointed in a manner directed by the state “Legislature[s].” Art. II, § 1, cl. 2. The legislature of every Defendant state had established detailed rules by which that state’s appointment of presidential electors should have been conducted. However, in the months before the 2020 election, those rules were deliberately changed by both state and non-state actors. The clear authority of those state legislatures to determine the rules for appointing electors was usurped at various times by governors, secretaries of state, election officials, state courts, federal courts, and private parties.

– – –

Jason M. Reynolds has more than 20 years’ experience as a journalist at outlets of all sizes.









Related posts