[claytongulick]

To be fair, the merits of that case were never decided.

The case was rejected on procedural grounds for lack of standing - a decision that has been hotly debated by many legal experts.

Did you ever actually read the filing? [1] I recommend it, very approachable.

If nothing else, the math and statistics cited should be of interest.

[1] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...

[Goronmon]

I've perused that filing in the past. Most of the language is about how votes "could" be fraudulent, with little to no actual proof that votes were cast or counted fraudulently.

I do remember it using that "1 in quadrillion" statistic that appeared pretty questionable even on the surface.

[542354234235]

> If nothing else, the math and statistics cited should be of interest.

This is true, but only because it is such an amazing example of bad statistics. It asserts that there is a “less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States”. It bases this on two things.

First is that Trump had an early lead, so it is statistically impossible for Biden to have ended up winning. Obviously, it fails to account for the fact that votes are not randomly distributed and mail in votes heavily favored Biden.

Second, that Biden performed better when compared to Clinton in 2016. Obviously, it fails to account for the fact that people vote differently at different times and for different people. The same differences would be seen comparing Kerry/Obama or Dole/Bush.