The governor and governor-elect of Utah were not consulted before Attorney General Sean Reyes signed the state onto a Texas lawsuit disputing 2020 election results in other states, according to a statement issued by the governor's office Wednesday evening.
Gov. Gary Herbert and Governor-elect Spencer Cox also called joining the lawsuit "an unwise use of taxpayers' money."
Their full statement follows:
The Attorney General did not consult us before signing on to this brief, so we don’t know what his motivation is. Just as we would not want other states challenging Utah’s election results, we do not think we should intervene in other states’ elections. Candidates who wish to challenge election results have access to the courts without our involvement. This is an unwise use of taxpayers’ money.”
Reyes announced Wednesday he was signing Utah onto the lawsuit along with 16 other states — all states President Donald Tump won in the election.
The suit from the Texas attorney general, Republican Ken Paxton, demands that the 62 total Electoral College votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin be invalidated, the Associated Press reports.
Reyes explained his support in this statement Wednesday afternoon:
“If Americans are to have confidence in the integrity of the election system, it is important the Supreme Court settles the question of who determines the time and place for voting: the legislature or the courts. “
“This case is not about the propriety of Utah elections. I have great confidence in the bi-partisan work to assure fair and reliable elections in our state. That is why I joined the Utah Auditor, Treasurer and Governor-elect in certifying Utah election results. Rather, we join this amicus because of questions about process and constitutional integrity that need to be answered nationally.”
“The fundamental constitutional question we need SCOTUS to answer is who really controls the time, place, and manner of elections in individual states? Is it the legislature, as it appears the Constitution commands? Or can that power be delegated or usurped in certain circumstances? The answer affects not only this election but potentially every future election.”
“This case is not only about one candidate or election cycle, as important as they may be, but the fairness of all elections—current and future. It is about assuring the process is fair and uniform today and becomes so or remains so tomorrow.”
“If the election was fair, the Supreme Court should say so. If not, it should say that. Either way, it should say something and not avoid the question. That is the only way to settle the constitutional question facing us today and for future generations and elections.”
“Without the Supreme Court reviewing this matter and rendering its impartial judgment, there will always be questions regarding election integrity. The High Court should speak so we all, as Americans, have more clarity about who should set the terms of elections.”
“Because all Americans need clarity and confidence in our national elections, I have joined the amicus brief supporting the petition of Texas and urge the Supreme Court to address this issue once and for all.”