Probably. Texas is crazy. I'm surprised they aren't also suing Tennessee or any of the other states that changed election laws in the last 20 years.
Source: Grew up in Texas. Took Texas government classes. (Justices of the Peace are responsible for determining cause of death in counties without suitable medical authorities. The only requirement for a JP is to be breathing. One recorded a body with a dozen or so bullet wounds as "suicide.")
This isn't the article I was looking for (trust me, the story of a state legislator crawling through transoms in the capitol to make off with early copies of legislation was hilarious), but it's pretty good. Go down to "ten worst".
Zero states or other parties have joined, or filed to intervene, but seven states plus the president have indicated that they support and intend to do so.
I think it's 9 indicating they want to join now. I don't have an official source.
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Missouri. They may get Indiana and Oklahoma as well is my understanding.
And they are (at least some of them) interested in joining.
> This is a big deal no matter what your political persuasion is.
Yes, attempted anti-democratic coups d'etats in powerful, established democracies are big deal.
> It's not just some crazy people claiming voting machines are controlled by the Chinese using mind control and a local judge throwing it out.
That's true; while not substantially different in the craziness of the claims, if it is thrown out, it won't be by a local judge.
> If they take the case it's going to be a very historic event.
If they refuse to take the case, its very historic.
If they take the case and then dismiss it on threshold grounds like standing or the political question / separation of powers doctrine, it will be very historic.
If they take the case and reach the merits, it will be very historic.
The problem I'm seeing is this. You (and millions of others) see this as a coup attempt.
Myself (and millions of others) see the election with hurried mail in ballots and little oversight and lack of external challengers as a coup attempt.
We are coming from two very different places obviously and there are a bunch of us. Too many to just say "screw those people they are wrong!" (which is the natural first inclination probably). So what happens? How do we work this out where we can share society together?
> So what happens? How do we work this out where we can share society together?
What makes you think that's still even a reasonable expectation? Likely, there will be blood in the streets. Even if the leadership peacefully admits defeat to end the formal dispute, the radicalization on your side has, with the deliberate encouragement of rhetoric from the top, probably gone too far for there to be any reasonable expectation that that won't be where this ultimately ends for many of the foot soldiers.
And, the people on your side that have been seeking specifically a second civil and/or a race war may well still get what they have sought.
The "people on my side" haven't been seeking a second civil war or race war. There may be a handful of Richard Spencer types but no one I know agrees with anything like that. What I know is a multi ethnic coalition that is anti-globalist, anti-bureaucratic, anti-war and nationalistic in the sense it believes in strong American identity and state and it believes in free and transparent elections.
The same "extremist" comments could be made about antifa types but it wouldn't be representative of all Democrats, many of whom are probably something like school teacher union and human resource members not communists with Molotov cocktails.
These are big coalitions but you are smart person who spends a lot of time over the years commenting on politics and you know that I'm sure.
I hope you are wrong about blood in the streets. I really do. But you might not be. Both sides have gotten a bit too extremist and utterly convinced of their righteousness so it might go to bad place no matter the outcome.
> If the election was totally normal would Texas still be suing four other states?
Yes, because the election was normal and Texas (joined by 17 other states and the defeated candidate) are suing four other states hoping to overturn the manifest will of the people (both nationally and specifically in the target states.)
What's abnormal isn't the election but the radicalization of much of the GOP behind an administration that cannot accept defeat because its head, and much of its upper ranks, face potentially severe legal risk if and when they are no longer shielded by possession of the Office of the President.
A radicalization serving personal interest of the Leader above not only national interest (which is, sadly, perhaps not that uncommon) but even partisan interest (which is much less common), causing significant difficulty in the ongoing Senate runoff campaigns in Georgia.
