What are Pseudo States? 'New Nevada' and 'New California' join Texas lawsuit to overturn election results

'New California State' and 'New Nevada State' argued that they are 'impacted by the arbitrary and capricious changes in election laws and procedures in the current States of California and Nevada'


                            What are Pseudo States? 'New Nevada' and 'New California' join Texas lawsuit to overturn election results
Donald Trump (Getty Images)

On Friday, December 11, two pseudo-states filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton with the Supreme Court that is attempting to overturn the Presidential election results. These imaginary new states are “New Nevada” and “New California”.

What are “New Nevada” and “New California”?

In a 13-page brief filed with the Supreme Court, “New California State” and “New Nevada State” argued that they are “directly impacted by the arbitrary and capricious changes in election laws and procedures occur with unfortunate regularity in the current States of California and Nevada.”

The brief was filed by attorney Robert E Thomas III, who's been listed as the chairman of the New Nevada State movement. He refers to himself as the “Attorney for New California State and for New Nevada” in the brief. 

The brief states: “Part of the reason for the formation of New California State and New Nevada Sate is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsome (California) and Sisolak (Nevada). An opinion by this Court affirming a national, uniform rule of law reestablishing the supremacy of The Electors Clause of Article II, § 1 of the United States Constitution will resolve some of the complaints causing the establishment of these new States.”

It argues, “New California State and New Nevada State are impacted because both in-person voters and absentee ballot voters are handled differently county-to-county within the States of California and Nevada, and differently between how voters are treated in California compared to how voters in Nevada are treated. This disparate treatment is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

On December 10, it was reported that Republican attorneys general in 17 states backed President Donald Trump in his desperate legal campaign to reverse the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Earlier, Trump filed a motion with the Supreme Court, asking the nine justices to let him intervene and become a plaintiff in the suit filed on Tuesday, December 8, by Republican-governed Texas against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The 17 states behind the amicus brief, according to the New York Times, represent a majority of the 25 Republican attorneys general across the country and include Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana and South Dakota. The two Republican attorneys general from Arizona and Georgia, the states that Trump lost, are not part of the brief.

Officials from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have reportedly called the lawsuit a reckless attack on democracy. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and former attorney general of the state, seemed baffled by the legal maneuver, calling it “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”. He told the New York Times, “I’ve never seen something like this, so I don’t know what the Supreme Court’s going to do.”

Biden amassed 306 electoral votes compared to Trump’s 232 in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election’s outcome. This was far higher than the necessary 270 votes. The four states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — contribute a combined 62 electoral votes to Biden’s total.

If you have a news scoop or an interesting story for us, please reach out at (323) 421-7514