Several Republican Attorneys General are coming together to petition the Supreme Court to hear the absolutely atrocious handling of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.
An “amicus brief” is a petition to the court by persons or groups that are not involved in the matter before the court, but have a strong interest or particular view on the matter in question.
These Republican Attorneys General are very concerned that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to allow the extension of the deadline for mail-in ballots “overstepped its constitutional responsibility, encroached on the authority of the Pennsylvania legislature, and violated the plain language of the Election Clauses.”
Led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, Attorneys General from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court concerning the mail-in ballot lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a similar brief, and Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter is expected to file one as well.
It was just last year that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed an Election Reform bill into law which included “no-excuse” mail-in voting, an extension to the mail-in voting timeline which allowed voters 50 days to mail in their ballots, as well as other reforms. The compromise with Republican lawmakers was that all ballots had to be received by 8 p.m. on election day.
After some warnings by the U.S. Postal Service that mail was delayed due to the pandemic, Pennsylvania Democrats tried to extend voting for several days to allow for delays but had their hands slapped by the Pennsylvania GOP, and rightly so.
Y’all had 50 days to mail in your ballots and now you’re asking for more time? Get outta here with that!
According to The Federalist, the lawsuit at the heart of the matter is Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Bookckvar, which challenges the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to allow the counting of mail-in ballots that arrived after 8 p.m. on election day — even without a clear postmark showing that they were mailed by before election day — which was in violation of the new Pennsylvania law.
This was the pre-election decision that was a 4-4 stalemate (Thanks so much, Chief Justice Roberts!) and it was kicked back to allow the left-leaning Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to stand.
ClashDaily covered that story here:
Fortunately, Justice Alito said that all mail-in ballots received after 8 p.m. on E-Day had to be separated from the others because the lawsuit could still come before the Supreme Court.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. granted the Republican Party of Pennsylvania’s request, temporarily ordering all counties to separate mail-in ballots that arrived after 8 p.m. on Election Day from the rest; however, the lawsuit is still pending petition from the highest court.
Source: The Gregg Jarrett
The Attorneys General weren’t pulling any punches, either.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said, “Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our Republic and it’s one of the reasons why the United States is the envy of the world. We have to ensure that every legal vote cast is counted and that every illegal vote cast is not counted.”
Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said, “The actions taken by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are one of the most breathtaking abuses of judicial authority that I’ve seen in my four-plus years as attorney general.”
“Our system of federalism relies on separation of powers to preserve liberty at every level of government, and the separation of powers in the Election Clauses is no exception to this principle.”
It also states that allowing time after election day and not requiring a postmark is a recipe for voter fraud.
“The decision provided a window of time after Election Day, when the preliminary results were announced, in which unscrupulous actors could attempt to influence a close Presidential election in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. And it enhanced the opportunities for fraud by requiring boards of elections to count late-received ballots even if there is no evidence that those ballots were cast before Election Day, because they have no legible postmark.”
Citing the 1974 case of Anderson v. United States, the brief continues, “Regardless of the election’s outcome, only legal ballots should be counted.”
The brief concludes, “This Court should grant the petitions, grant expedited review, and reverse the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s judgment.”
We shall see what becomes of this as Team Trump continues to push for the Supreme Court to clamp down on Democrats trying to mess around with elections.
Don’t like what’s been happening with the election meddling? Have your say in a way Big Media can’t suppress:
Put it on a T-shirt…
Or a mug…