Posted By Ruth King on December 13th, 2020
It’s been nearly six weeks since the election and electoral votes in swing states are in flux. Texas, joined by at least 17 other states, sought to sue Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia for unconstitutional changes to 2020 election Laws. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, ruled that Texas has no standing.
Texas and fellow litigants had a legal precedent from seven weeks ago. On October 26, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid by a 5 to 3 margin from Wisconsin Democrats “to extend the deadline for counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.”
Apart from all the squabbles, legal wrangling, and controversy, what makes Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada conducive to election fraud and criminal activity, and less so in Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio?
It’s been nearly six weeks since the election and electoral votes in swing states are in flux. Texas, joined by at least 17 other states, sought to sue Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia for unconstitutional changes to 2020 election Laws. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, ruled that Texas has no standing.
Texas and fellow litigants had a legal precedent from seven weeks ago. On October 26, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid by a 5 to 3 margin from Wisconsin Democrats to extend the deadline for counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
Apart from all the squabbles, legal wrangling, and controversy, what makes Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada conducive to election fraud and criminal activity, and less so in Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio?