TRUMP 47 SALE: 74% Off VIP Membership - FINAL HOURS!
The Trump Effect: Qatar Sends a Message to Remaining Hamas Leaders
University of Oregon Employee Suspended After Telling Trump Supporters to Kill Themselves
One Agency Is Melting Down Over Trump's Win
If You Thought Media Reactions to the Election Were Bad, Just Look at...
Coincidence? NYC Mayor Eric Adams Makes Major Immigration Announcement After Phone Call Wi...
'From the Jailhouse to the Texas House': Candidate Who Defied COVID Restrictions Wins...
KJP Pressed to Explain Biden's Past Rhetoric About Trump With His Post-Election Messaging
How Trump's Win Is Already Having an Impact on Illegal Immigration
Jack Smith Moves to Pause Trump's DC Case
Daniel Penny Hired a Trial Consultant Who Helped Pick Kyle Rittenhouse's Jury
Analysis: How Many Senate Seats Will Republicans Control When All the Votes Are...
The Clintons Have Broken Their Silence About Trump's Election Victory
Here's What Rashida Tlaib Was Posting About As Israelis Were Being Targeted in...
France's Largest Newspaper Had This to Say About Trump's Win
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