On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) publicly called on the Supreme Court to hear an emergency appeal challenging the election results in Pennsylvania, arguing that the Democrat-led Pennsylvania legislature’s vote last year to allow universal mail-in voting flew in the face of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition of such a move.
Cruz wrote, “Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis.”
“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances,” Cruz explained. “Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.”
“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game,” he continued. “If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.”
Cruz noted that the Democrat legislature was backed by what he called “the partisan Democrat Supreme Court” in Pennsylvania, noting that three U.S. Supreme Court justices had stated that there was a strong possibility that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had violated the U.S. Constitution:
The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases. Just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote-correctly, I believe-concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that “there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”
In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called “laches,” which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. But, the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently and so they cannot selectively enforce it now.”
Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long. The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.
Cruz addressed the Supreme Court directly: “Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times.”
He asked the Court to hear the case in order to heal the nation: “As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘the election was rigged.’ That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”