Trump Backs Latest Military Campaign in Gaza
The Media Keeps Lying About Why Foreign Professors, Students Are Being Deported
Another Judge Issues Unlawful Ruling Against DOGE
Family of Boeing Whistleblower Claims the Company Was 'the Clear, Foreseeable Cause' of...
Can Congress Stop Democrats' Lawfare Against Trump's Policies? This Lawmaker Thinks So.
FBI Arrests State Senator for Trying to Solicit Minor for Sex
Police Departments Not Selling Guns Will Only Hurt Departments
My Dinner With André ('Voice of America' Edition)
There's Even More Far-Leftists for Liberal Columnist to Promote
Judge Continues to Go After Trump Administration Over Flights Deporting Illegal Alien Gang...
Donald Trump Signs Executive Order to Dismantle the Department of Education
House Republicans Launch Investigation Into Swatting Incidents
New York's Highest Court Just Delivered a Blow to Non-Citizen Voting in NYC
We Have an Update About the Airplane That Flipped Upside Down Upon Landing
Pam Bondi Makes Major Announcement Regarding Tesla Terrorists
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