Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who made headlines for filing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four of the states where the election results were challenged by the president, explained the arguments in his lawsuit, which now has gained support from 17 other states.

Paxton filed a lawsuit on Dec. 8, on behalf of the state of Texas against the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin for having violated the electoral regulations established in the national Constitution by changing the election procedure in certain aspects without having the authority to do so.

In an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, the host and the Paxton reviewed the arguments of the lawsuit and its importance.

When asked why he filed the lawsuit, Paxton said that if other states do not follow the Constitution then that affects the voters of his state and the entire country, because the rights of all Americans are violated when other states do not respect the law.

“And so, our job is to make sure that the Constitution is followed and that every vote counts. In this case, I’m not sure that every vote was counted, not in the right way,” Paxton explained.

Hannity asked the attorney general why the case went directly to the Supreme Court, to which Paxton responded that in a dispute between states, no other court has jurisdiction but the Supreme Court.

In the weeks since Nov. 3, when the president’s legal team began legal efforts to prove election fraud, mainly by requesting that illegal votes be discounted, both the low courts and the state supreme courts, one after the other, rejected the lawsuits filed without reviewing the evidence, arguing among other things, that it cannot “disfranchise” so many voters.

“And so, we’re pleading with the Supreme Court, please hear our case. Give us a chance, at least, to argue what we think is right. We want to argue the Constitution,” the Texas attorney general appealed, echoing President Trump’s claims.

Who can change electoral procedures

Hannity asked the attorney general to explain one of the arguments in the lawsuit, which is that government officials and judges changed the rules on how to conduct certain aspects of voting when that power lies with state legislatures.

“It is the responsibility of state legislatures, per the Constitution, to set the rules for election of electors,” explained Paxton.

“In this case, those were overridden in the four states we’re talking about, were overridden by other officials, whether they were judges or other governmental officials. And that’s not the way our Constitution works. That’s the challenge we have in front of the court,” Paxton elaborated on the above point and asked, “Can this be overridden by people who are not responsible under the Constitution for doing this?”

Paxton talked about how some officials bypassed the Constitution, for example with the issue of the absentee ballots they allowed people to vote by mail without verifying their signatures.

“So, when you request a mail-in ballot, you have to sign for that application and then they’ll verify when you send your ballot in on a sleeve of the ballot, usually they’ll verify that signature to ensure those two signatures match,” Paxton said.

“That’s a pretty important thing when in Pennsylvania you go from 233,000 mail-in ballots four years ago to 2.5 million and a difference in the election was only 81,000. That’s a very important issue to ignore,” added Paxton

The 14th Amendment

The second argument in the lawsuit is about how local officials at the county level changed the rules in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires the state legislature to set the rules that apply to all counties equally.

“In this case, in all four states, we have county by county distinctions that treated voters differently. We, therefore, have unreliable results, and that’s a problem,” Paxton explained.

The ultimate goal of the lawsuit, to which there is precedent, would be for the Supreme Court to direct state legislatures to elect their states’ electors, that is, legislators would vote to choose the winner of the election.

“We can’t go back and let the genie back in the bottle, because we don’t know how to match up signatures anymore because they were separated from ballots. Since we can’t go back and do that, we want to go back to the legislature and let them make a decision since they were elected by the people of their states,” Paxton said.