A random check of about a dozen names from the pasted list found that the voter either did not exist, or was no longer registered to vote on account of being dead...

There were two people who had obituaries that showed up in the voter rolls...twice. In both cases, a quick lookup in the phone book suggests that two people with the same name (but different initials) live in the state.

So, thanks for the example that the Michigan election rolls are correct?

I'm not in a place to practice google-fu, but if I'm remembering correctly, wasn't the Texas lawsuit not heard by the USSC because they didn't follow the protocol necessary to have a case heard by the USSC?

> because they didn't follow the protocol necessary

Texas followed the protocol, which included filing a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however denied the motion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...

Interesting, I thought all appeals to the USSC required moving through the federal court system first.

It's uncommon, but the Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." U.S. Const. Art. III. Here, Texas attempted to sue four other states over how they conducted their elections, so it fell under original jurisdiction.

This was original jurisdiction. Cases between states start here.

The supreme court in fact ruled against Texas in dismissing the suit, by mkaing it clear that each state has sole discretion on how to run their own elections, as prescribed by the Constitution. Whether state elections laws were followed was for state courts to decide, not Texas and not the federal supreme court

States can run their own elections. So long as they abide by Article2, which indisputably, PA, MI, WI, GA did not. NV did use their legislature to make the changes which is why they weren’t a defendant. Texas’s position was that they states didn’t follow the constitution and the winner of these federal elections would effect rule and law in Texas.

Here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

Saying the Trump Campaign only filed five suit begs to split hairs. Many of the suits haven't technically included Trump personally, or his campaign entity, as a party. However, they seek precisely the same results, and recycle many of claims in suits he has filed in his own name.

Example: The Texas motion to the Supreme Court to bring a case against Pennsylvania and other battleground states did not include Trump or his campaign as a plaintiff. Trump did, however, seek permission to join the lawsuit. That was doubly odd, considering the reason the states thought they could go directly to the top court was its "original jurisdiction" for suits between states.

Either way, does the defeat of the states' petition to the Supreme Court count toward the number of suits lost?

I believe the source for "more than fifty lawsuits" is Marc Elias, an admittedly left-leaning lawyer who's been keeping track. You might prefer to cast off his conclusion based on who he bats for. But you could also search for him and find his list.