No plans to yield: Texas stands by claim that Biden win “statistically impossible”
Quote from: https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-12-25-texas-stands-claim-biden-win-statistically-impossible.html
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended a statistical analysis claiming that Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s victory was “statistically impossible.” Paxton stood by the analysis by economist Charles Cicchetti that said Biden had “less than one in a quadrillion” chance of winning in a clean election. The attorney general’s defense of the claim on Dec. 11 followed his now-dismissed lawsuit against four battleground states.
According to the economist, it was statistically impossible for Biden to overcome President Donald Trump’s leads in four battleground states on the night of the election based on a random population sample.
Paxton cited Cicchetti’s analysis in his election lawsuit against the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia. The suit alleged that the four defendant states used the pandemic to push through changes to mail-in voting rules – in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause mandating only state legislatures decide on election rules.
Paxton commented on the criticism against Cicchetti, saying that these consist “solely of ad hominem attacks.” The attorney general further remarked that the economist’s analysis showing Biden underperformed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the U.S.’s 50 largest urban areas “reinforces the unusual statistical improbability of Biden’s vote totals” in five urban areas in the defendant states.
Seventeen Republican states backed the Texas attorney general’s lawsuit through a Dec. 9 amicus curiae brief. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich later filed his own brief bolstering Paxton’s complaint, while President Donald Trump himself sought permission to join the lawsuit against the four defendant states as a plaintiff.
However, the high court rejected the complaint filed by the Lone Star State for “lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.” The one-page U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that Texas “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”
The defendant states slammed the now-dismissed election lawsuit filed by Paxton
According to the economist, it was statistically impossible for Biden to overcome President Donald Trump’s leads in four battleground states on the night of the election based on a random population sample.
Paxton cited Cicchetti’s analysis in his election lawsuit against the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia. The suit alleged that the four defendant states used the pandemic to push through changes to mail-in voting rules – in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause mandating only state legislatures decide on election rules.
Paxton commented on the criticism against Cicchetti, saying that these consist “solely of ad hominem attacks.” The attorney general further remarked that the economist’s analysis showing Biden underperformed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the U.S.’s 50 largest urban areas “reinforces the unusual statistical improbability of Biden’s vote totals” in five urban areas in the defendant states.
Seventeen Republican states backed the Texas attorney general’s lawsuit through a Dec. 9 amicus curiae brief. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich later filed his own brief bolstering Paxton’s complaint, while President Donald Trump himself sought permission to join the lawsuit against the four defendant states as a plaintiff.
However, the high court rejected the complaint filed by the Lone Star State for “lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.” The one-page U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that Texas “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”
The defendant states slammed the now-dismissed election lawsuit filed by Paxton
