Watch Scott Jennings Slap Down This Shoddy Talking Point About the Spending Bill
We Have the Long-Awaited News About Who Will Control the Minnesota State House
60 Minutes Reporter Reveals Her Greatest Fear as We Enter a Second Trump...
Wait, Is Joe Biden Even Awake to Sign the New Spending Bill?
NYC Mayor Eric Adams Explains Why He Confronted Suspected UnitedHealthcare Shooter to His...
The Absurd—and Cruel—Myth of a ‘Government Shutdown’
Biden Was Too 'Mentally Fatigued' to Take Call From Top Committee Chair Before...
Who Is Going to Replace JD Vance In the Senate?
'I Have a Confession': CNN Host Makes Long-Overdue Apology
There Are New Details on the Alleged Suspect in Trump Assassination
Doing Some Last Minute Christmas Shopping? Make Sure to Avoid Woke Companies.
Biden Signs Stopgap Bill Into Law Just Hours Before Looming Gov’t Shutdown Deadline
Massive 17,000 Page Report on How the Biden Admin Weaponized the Federal Government...
Trump Hits Biden With Amicus Brief Over the 'Fire Sale' of Border Wall
JK Rowling Marked the Anniversary of When She First Spoke Out Against Transgender...
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