Send in the Troops, Mr. President
Throw the Book At Corrupt Democrats in Minnesota and Everywhere Else
Bishop Barron's Bully Pulpit
Illinois’ Answer to Career Criminals: Seal Their Records
Don Lemon Leads Activist Mob, Quickly Regrets It; Margaret Brennan's Fact-Free Dispute Wit...
It’s Not 'Racism' or 'White Supremacy,' It’s the Declaration of Independence
A Bad Bet
America's Three-Party System
The Neighborhoods the Silent Generation Built
AI and Gambling: The Two Fastest-Growing Sectors of the Economy
John Marshall: Judicial Independence and the Safeguard of Religious Liberty
While Canada Moves Against the U.S. Over Greenland, We Just Beat Them at...
The Crowd Went Crazy After Seeing Trump at the College Football National Championship
DOJ to Investigate and Arrest Don Lemon and Minneapolis Church Stormers
DHS Just Announced Huge Arrest Numbers in Minnesota
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

Related:

JOE BIDEN TED CRUZ

You can read his full statement here.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos