Here's a Liberal Policy That Now Has Bill Maher 'Incensed'
Watch Don Lemon Shut Down WaPo's Taylor Lorenz Over This Take About Gaza...
There’s a Massive Pushback Brewing Against the Pro-Hamas Thugs Taking Over College Campuse...
The Left’s New School Choice Playbook in Arkansas Serves as a National Warning
Joe Biden Hands Out Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants
Democrat Massachusetts Gov. Approves $400 Million In Freebies for Illegal Immigrants
In Case You Didn't Know, Roads and Bridges Are Now 'Racist'
Joe Biden's Economic Advisor Has No Idea How 'Bidenomics' Work
Americans Overwhelmingly Describe Trump As Strong Leader, A Stark Contrast of What They...
Democrat Accused of 'Deliberately' Misleading Arizona House to Host Drag Story Hour at...
Jewish Organizations Abruptly Pull Out of Meeting With Biden Admin After Addition of...
Supporters of President Trump Should Not Support Biden’s DOJ or its Dark Antitrust...
The Truth About the CIA
The Left’s Radicalization Of Our Children
Holly Rehder: The Only MAGA Candidate in the Race for Missouri Lt. Governor
Tipsheet

Sen. Cruz Urges Emergency Appeal on Pennsylvania Court Challenge

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

An appeals court recently ruled that the Trump campaign cannot stop the certification of their election results. Joe Biden won the state by about 2 percent, according to the AP. But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is urging the Supreme Court to hear an emergency appeal on a Pennsylvania election challenge, citing concerns about statewide mail-in voting enacted by the state legislature.

Advertisement

Cruz shared the statement on his Twitter page.

Cruz blamed the Democrat Pennsylvania Supreme Court for the change, and argued why it deserves to be analyzed.

"The appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the range in the middle of the game," he wrote. "If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so."

"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," he continues. "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"

Advertisement

You can read his full statement here.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement