ELECTION LAWSUIT

Related: AG Barr: No evidence of voter fraud that’d change election outcome“This is how democracies die,” Nessel said Friday. “By virtue of these types of actions, which are unprecedented in American history.”Legal experts don’t believe the high court will hear the case. Despite that, four Michigan GOP congressmen have signed onto the case and 15 GOP state lawmakers. Nessel and the Attorney Generals of the other states have all filed briefs with the high court. Each member who signed their names on their respective briefs also won their own elections in 2020, which they are now asking to be invalidated.

LANSING, Mich. – President Donald Trump's campaign was handed a unanimous defeat Friday at the Michigan Supreme Court, which declined to hear an appeal about how absentee ballots were handled in Detroit as well as other issues. The court steered it aside with a three-sentence order, the latest in a string of unsuccessful cases challenging how the Nov. 3 election was handled. Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote victory in Michigan was certified by the Board of State Canvassers on Nov. 23. The president's campaign claimed the Republican Party wasn't allowed to get an appropriate number of observers inside a Detroit convention center where absentee ballots were counted. A judge and the Michigan appeals court ruled against Trump.

Michigan’s election results faced another round of legal challenges in courts both big and small just four days before the Electoral College is slated to meet and finalize the 2020 election. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel responded to the state of Texas, which is suing Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia -- three other key states that voted in favor of President-elect Joe Biden. Texas alleged that Michigan broke its own election laws to send absentee ballots to voters during a pandemic, and argued that the court should throw out millions of votes. More: Michigan AG: Texas AG Paxton’s election lawsuit is clear signal request for pardon by TrumpNessel said the claims in the lawsuit are “absurd” and already have been debunked in lower courts. The scheme has been floated and then called for by President Trump, his campaign and his legal team before and after the presidential election in an effort to overturn election results.

The legal blows began when a federal appeals court rejected an effort to block about 9,300 mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day in Pennsylvania. A Philadelphia judge found none as he refused late Friday to reject about 8,300 mail-in ballots there. Porter Wright filed the motion Thursday, as criticism grew that law firms backing the Republican election challenges were helping Trump defy the will of the American people. Porter Wright, which has earned more than $700,000 from the Trump campaign, appeared to take down its Twitter feed Tuesday after it was inundated with attacks. The firm did not reply to specific questions about the posts or whether it would stop representing the Trump campaign entirely.