MOTION TO ENLARGE WORD-COUNT LIMIT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendants.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RvUFrXr6P7WH_FcimZ4Atkb9pvxD8RwK/view?usp=sharing 

No. 22O155, Original 

In the Supreme Court of the United States 

STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendants. 

MOTION TO ENLARGE WORD-COUNT LIMIT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT 

Ken Paxton 

Counsel of Record 

Attorney General of Texas 

Brent Webster 

First Assistant Attorney General of Texas 

Lawrence Joseph 

Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas 

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) 

Austin, TX 78711-2548 

kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov 

(512) 936-1414 

 

MOTION TO ENLARGE 

WORD-COUNT LIMIT 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

 

ARGUMENT 

 

I. DEFENDANT STATES’ FACTUAL ARGUMENTS LACK MERIT. 

A. Pennsylvania’s critiques of the evidence are false. 

B. Georgia’s critiques of the evidence are false. 

C. Michigan’s critiques of the evidence are false. 

D. Wisconsin’s critiques of the evidence are false. 

II. DEFENDANT STATES’ LEGAL ARGUMENTS LACK MERIT. 

A. Pennsylvania changed its deadline for receiving ballots through judicial, not legislative, action. 

B. Pennsylvania cannot ignore the express terms of state law concerning signatures. 

C. The Michigan Secretary of State violated state statute when she mailed absentee ballot applications. D. Georgia abrogated its statutes. 

E. Wisconsin abrogated its statutes. 

III. THIS CASE WARRANTS SUMMARY DISPOSITION OR EXPEDITED BRIEFING.

  

  CONCLUSION 

Leave to file the Bill of Complaint should be granted. 

December 11, 2020 

Supplemental Declaration of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. 

Clinton Compared to Biden Among Urban Voters 

Georgia Rejection Rates 

Conclusions 

20. I stand by my conclusions from my prior declaration. The subsequent explanation of my use of the widely accepted Z-score is intended to focus on what I said and concluded with respect to the highly improbable differences between the earlier tabulations before 3 AM EST the morning after the election and subsequently in the four battleground states. Things were very different in terms of the propensity of votes for Biden and the change in the reported outcome. These changes were not simply coincidences. Therefore, I continue to recommend that further investigations and audits should be done to nearly everyone’s satisfaction. 

21. In this spirit, I further analyzed data to determine what caused Clinton to win with bigger urban area margins in 2016 compared to Biden’s urban voter margins in 2020. I discovered the Trump improvements with Hispanic and African American voters accounted for his improvement in 2020 compared to 2016 in terms of the percent of urban vote that he won. Trump’s relative gains explain why nationally Biden’s percentage of the urban vote fell behind Clinton. The clarification is a national outcome. I also found and report here that in four of the five major urban areas in the Defendants’ battleground states that Biden had, contrary to national results, higher margins than Clinton. This raises additional concerns about the turn-around from the early morning tabulations favoring Trump to the final tabulations resulting in Biden’s win in the four battleground states. 

22. I analyzed Georgia’s response to my analysis related to differences in rejection rates in the 2020 presidential election. I previously explained that if the 2016 rejection rate was applied to the much greater number of mail-in ballots in 2020 that Trump would win Georgia. In its brief, Georgia’s counters that 2018 rejection rates should be used rather than 2016. I do not agree because presidential elections are often different than off-year elections. Nevertheless, I analyzed the widely used EAVS data for 2018 and determined that any Georgia assertion was wrong concerning nearly similar 2018 and 2020, and very low absentee, not mail-in, rejection rates. I show that using the EAVS data from 2018 to estimate expected 2020 mail-in rejections would translate to 38,937 additional rejected statewide mail-in ballots, which are about three times greater than Biden’s difference using 12,670 votes, or less. 

 /s/ Charles Cicchetti 

 Charles Cicchetti, Ph.D. 

 December 11, 2020 

 AFFIDAVIT OF LISA GAGE