China’s 90-Day Energy Trap
Iran Shows Why Louisiana’s Energy Industry Must Be Protected
Opposing Tariffs Is Not Conservative Policy
The Mother of All Shakedowns: California Reparations
Whose ‘Stolen’ Land Is It, Anyway?
Defense of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea Requires Air Superiority
The Future of the Dean Dome: Tradition, Stewardship and Carolina Basketball's Next Chapter
Iranian Women’s Courage Must Not Be Forgotten on International Women’s Day, Part 1
One Historic Town Dismisses the Pledge of Allegiance
Pink Slips for DEI and ESG?
This Republican Lawmaker Is Reportedly Retiring After This Term
IRGC Operative Convicted in Plot to Assassinate U.S. Officials, Including Trump
U.S. Seeks to Seize $15M Allegedly Linked to Iranian Oil Shipping Network
Would a John Lujan Nomination Cost Republicans TX-35?
Minnesota Democrat Lawmaker Urges Studying 'the Benefits of Shoplifting and Retail Theft'
Tipsheet

Sen. Cruz Urges Emergency Appeal on Pennsylvania Court Challenge

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

Related:

JOE BIDEN TED CRUZ

You can read his full statement here.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement