This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) — Opponents of the Texas election challenge of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin told the Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday that the Texas allegations are “not true.”

Texas filed a lawsuit this week saying, among other things, the four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to essentially change election laws without going through the various state legislatures. Texas claimed it was done in such a way as to actually violate the U.S. Constitution.

Short of court intervention, the Electoral College will choose Joe Biden over Donald Trump by a margin of 306 to 232 on December 14. The most recent counts indicated Biden beat Trump in the popular vote by 81.2 million to 74.2 million.

Opponents now include the City of Detroit, which said in writing to the supreme court, “The same allegations have been presented to federal and state courts in Michigan at least nine times since the November election.”

“The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process.”

Pennsylvania filing to the supreme court

Detroit also wrote, “Ultimately, the evidence shows that there is no real dispute that the City complied with the directives of the Michigan Legislature.”

Texas made few claims of fact but relied mostly on legal analysis. One claim it made was “The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion…”

Detroit responded, “That conclusion is premised upon the flawed assumption that the universe of voters who cast ballots in person on election day is indistinguishable from those who choose to vote absentee.”

Georgia directly challenged the underlying premise of the Texas complaint.

“Georgia’s legislature enacted laws governing elections and election disputes, and the State and its officers have implemented and followed those laws,” Georgia wrote in a motion to the supreme court.

“Under Georgia law, the State Elections Board has authority …” Georgia said, and the board only did what its legislature permitted.

Georgia also said Texas has no standing, in other words no legal right to sue, because Texas suffered no harm from the election results in another state. In short, the argument is that Texas is trying to unfairly meddle in the affairs of Georgia.

Pennsylvania also responded on Thursday, saying changes to the deadlines for receiving mail-in ballots was not a violation of state law.

“There was no state law violation when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court temporarily modified the deadline for the receipt of mail-in and absentee ballots, because state constitutional law required it,” Pennsylvania said.

“The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process,” Pennsylvania wrote, and its Attorney General, Josh Shapiro mentioned via Twitter.

Various lawmakers from the Pennsylvania Assembly took a different view and filed a document in support of Texas. Shapiro referred to them as 106 spineless sycophants.

The District of Columbia on Thursday filed its opposition to Texas on behalf of itself, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington.

“The people have chosen,” proclaimed the District of Columbia. “But Texas, supported by 17 other states, asks this Court to overturn that choice.”

“Voting by mail is a safe, secure, and lawful method for conducting an election, particularly during a public health crisis,” the district also said.

The growing list of opponents on Thursday argued that state legislatures can delegate authority to state courts. Therefore, not every state court ruling on election matters must go back to a state legislature.

Michigan denied violating its own laws, and Wisconsin argued that even if election officials erred in the interpretation of election laws, it hardly becomes a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Wisconsin took it a step further, saying, “Texas has not shown that it would suffer irreparable harm.” Instead if Texas wins the court case, it would “only harm the millions of Wisconsin voters who determined the outcome of the election.”