Israel Strikes Back
Want to Take a Guess Why the Media Won't Cover What Just Happened...
'Doesn't Add Up': Israel Aid Bill Includes $9 Billion for Gaza 'Assistance'
News Outlets Mad at Trump Also Defy Judge’s Gag Order on Juror Information,...
Watch This Purple-Haired Democrat Demand for More Ukraine Funding In Massive Rant
MTG Introduces Strange Amendment As She Fights Ukraine Funding Package
Watch Josh Hawley Expose DHS Secretary Mayorkas Over Release of Laken Riley's Accused...
Ilhan Omar’s Daughter Arrested Amid Anti-Israel Protests
12-Person Jury Has Been Selected In Trump Trial
GOP Congressman Warns the Biden Admin to Protect Its Own Citizens, Not Illegal...
The Difference Between Trump's Bodega Visit and Biden's Gas Station 'Photo-Op' Is Truly...
House Freedom Caucus Delivers Some Bad News for Speaker Johnson's Foreign Aid Bills
More Polls Mean More Economic Concerns for Biden
A ‘Squad’ Member’s Daughter Was Suspended From Her College for Participating in Anti-Israe...
It’s Never Too Late to Cut Taxes for Small Businesses
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