Texas Case Would Get ‘Fair Hearing’ in Supreme Court: Kevin Freeman

An American flag waves in front of the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Nov. 2, 2020. Patrick Semansky/AP Photo

The election lawsuit filed by Texas with the Supreme Court has a good chance of success, according to Kevin Freeman, founder of Every Legal Vote Coalition, who said that judges in lower courts had dismissed cases for “rinky-dink” reasons.

“We believe that there are honest justices on the [Supreme] Court, and if presented proper legal arguments, and if they take time to look at the evidence, that they will clearly see the fraud that took place,” Freeman told Epoch Times affiliate NTD News.

“I think we will get a fair hearing,” he told host Sean Lin.

The attorney general for Texas yesterday filed a lawsuit against four key battleground states with the Supreme Court.

The suit argues those states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by changing ballot-integrity measures before the Nov. 3 election.

Attorneys general from the defendant states have disputed those allegations and scorned the legal merits of the case.

The Supreme Court has yet to say whether it will hear the case. However, it is rare for them to turn down such cases of one state suing another state, said Freeman, since it shuts off the only legal avenue.

Kevin Freeman, host of Economic War Room and co-founder of Every Legal Vote, speaks at the "Election Fraud Truth Summit" on Dec. 8, 2020. Screenshot/Courtesy of Economic War Room via NTD

“I think when they see the evidence, it will be overwhelming,” he said. “They will realize that the mail-in ballots and the vote count stoppages, and all the nefarious things that took place in this election are worthy of some level of remedy—I hope it’s a good one.”

Every Legal Vote Coalition was set up following the Nov. 3 election with the stated mission of uncovering any instance of voter fraud.

‘Rinky-Dink’ Reasons

Freeman criticized the media characterization of Trump continually losing election-related lawsuits. “What’s happening is they’re being dismissed on really rinky-dink thoughts,” he said.

He said judges have dismissed cases over legal standing or because they should have been brought in federal or state court, or were filed too late or too early.

“Judges will often pass on anything that they think is politically hard,” he said. “Now, not all judges, but many of them refuse to take cases.”

Freeman said that they are encouraging attorneys general in other states to join Texas in the lawsuit, to write amicus briefs, or to support in other ways.

He believes that voter fraud not only violated the Fourteenth Amendment as is claimed in the Texas case, but also the 1871 “Ku Klux Klan” Act.

“It’s a civil rights act that demonstrates that you cannot have conspiracies by two or more individuals or two or more states, to rob the rights of other citizens,” said Freeman. “Frankly, that’s what Texas feels has happened to them.”

So far, the Supreme Court has not made a decision on whether it will take up other election-related cases after they have filtered up from lower courts.

The Supreme Court is the only court that can hear cases of states suing other states. Such cases are directly filed with the Supreme Court without filtering up through lower courts.

The Supreme Court yesterday set a deadline for 3 p.m. on Dec. 3 for defendants to file briefs opposing the request by the state of Texas to take up the case.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks to reporters at a news conference outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 9, 2016. Gabriella Demczuk/Getty Images

Announcing the filing of the case, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement, “Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election.”

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections. Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro described the case on Twitter as “a scheme by the president of the United States and some in the Republican Party to disregard the will of the people.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement called it “a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading.”

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul wrote on Twitter, “Texas is as likely to change the outcome of the Ice Bowl as it is to overturn the will of Wisconsin voters in the 2020 presidential election.”

A spokesperson for Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr wrote in an email to The Epoch Times, “With all due respect, Texas attorney general is constitutionally, legally, and factually wrong about Georgia.”

The Texas lawsuit (pdf) asks the Supreme Court ultimately to take the following actions; declare that the four states administered the election in violation of the constitution; nullify any electoral college votes from the four states; prevent the four states from using their election results to appoint electors; authorize the four states to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors; direct any states that have already appointed presidential electors, to select new ones or to appoint none; and provide any other relief as is fitting.

Sean Lin and Ivan Pentchuocov contributed to this report.