GOP congressman doesn't want you to know he tried to overturn the 2020 election

3853

Rep. Dan Newhouse now says the amicus declaring Biden's wins 'unconstitutional' was not intended to change the results.

Less than two weeks after backing a lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) is now claiming he wanted to do no such thing.

In an op-ed published Sunday, Newhouse wrote that the amicus brief he and 125 other House Republicans signed backing a Texas challenge to the election results was really only intended to "defend our Constitution and instill confidence in our election system."

"I maintain, despite the numerous media reports to the contrary, that this brief — and this case — was not about overturning election results," he argued. "The consequences of a lack of confidence in our election system are not just for this election, but for future national elections as well. If now is not the time to stand up for our Constitution, when is?"

Newhouse tweeted a link to the story on Monday, again claiming: "Despite numerous media reports to the contrary, my intention behind joining the amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania was to defend our Constitution & instill confidence in our election system - not to overturn election results."

But the entire point of the Texas lawsuit — endorsed by Donald Trump as "the big one" that would overturn President-elect Joe Biden's victory — was that it sought to throw out the 2020 presidential results from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It explicitly asked the Supreme Court to order new elections, based on concerns about different states operating under different election rules.

The House GOP's amicus brief encouraged the high court to hear the case, specifically agreeing with the claims that the voting in each of those four states was conducted unconstitutionally. The signors asked that the justices to "uphold the plenary authority of the state legislatures to establish the manner by which electors are appointed, and determine the constitutional validity of any ballots cast under rules and procedures established by actors or public bodies other than state legislatures."

Contrary to Newhouse's inferences, any lack of confidence in the nation's election systems likely stems from Trump and his supporters spending the past several years lying about them and falsely claiming widespread fraud. Media fact-checkerselection officials of both political parties, and many judges — even some of them appointed by Trump — found no substantial election integrity issues in the 2020 vote.

The Supreme Court also disagreed with Newhouse and his House Republican colleagues. It voted to reject the case, finding Texas lacked standing or a "judicially cognizable interest."

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.