An election law expert doesn't see any chance that Texas attorney general Ken Paxton's lawsuit will get President Donald Trump's election loss overturned.
Paxton challenged the election results in four battleground states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block them from voting in the Electoral College, but election law scholar Ned Foley told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" why that was doomed to fail.
"The Supreme Court I do not think will take this up, and the allegations, as you said, are a repeat of allegations made in different courts and in each of these four states," said Foley, director of the election law program at Ohio State's Moritz College of Law. "I think the Supreme Court will view this lawsuit as even more political in nature than some of the other litigation, and, therefore, inappropriate for a court of law to handle. So I expect that it will be rejected quickly."
The Supreme Court has already issued a single-sentence rejection of a lawsuit filed by three Pennsylvania Republicans challenging their state's presidential election results, and Foley explained why these challenges were unlike the case that ultimately decided the 2000 election.
"In 2000, the Bush v. Gore lawsuit looked more like a conventional voting case," Foley said. "You had those hanging chads, and had you to ask whether similar voters should be treated similarly, depending whether they lived in Palm Beach, Florida, or Miami, Florida. For the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the equal protection issue there was more in character with what the courts normally do."
"This is very different," he added. "This is one state, the state of Texas, trying to come in and tell four other states how they're supposed to go about their business appointing their own electors. It goes much more to the heart of the political system, how we elect presidents and how each state participates in the Electoral College. I think the Supreme Court will view this very differently from that Bush v. Gore case 20 years ago."
