Nearly six months have passed since the Nov. 3, 2020 general election in the United States. The Supreme Court on Monday (April 19) declined to hear a lawsuit related to the Pennsylvania voting dispute.
The appeal comes after a Republican congressional candidate unsuccessfully challenged Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot initiative. This is the last voting law-related lawsuit in the state to be dismissed by the Supreme Court since the Nov. 3 election.
In a two-line order, the Supreme Court wrote: “The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.”
This is yet another time the Supreme Court has refused to hear an election-related lawsuit. Since Nov. 3, 2020, President Donald Trump (Trump) and his Republican allies have attempted to challenge the election results, but have been dismissed time and time again.
The lawsuit was filed by Republican congressional candidate Jim Bognet (R-Okla.). The case involves the question of whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exceeded its authority. The court allowed more Pennsylvanians to vote early and vote by mail. The plaintiffs argued that this circumvented the powers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled in 2020 that mail-in ballots could be delayed until three days after election day.
Republicans and Trump have said that the mail-in ballot measure, which was relaxed due to the Communist virus (Wuhan pneumonia) pandemic, benefited Biden.
Borgnitt’s case was initially dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Bognett or the other challengers were said to have no legal right to bring the lawsuit.
Bognett’s attorney, David Thompson, said in court papers, “This case provides an opportunity for the court to methodically resolve these issues (after the general election) through full briefing and argument.”
Thompson argued that the state Supreme Court “rewrote” the election deadline and said the Constitution gives the “state legislature,” not “state judges,” the authority to address federal election law.
“Although Election Day has passed, the controversy surrounding these issues will not go away.” Your court’s intervention is needed to resolve the differences in the lower courts,” Thompson said. A federal appeals court has reached a contrary decision and the client has standing to bring the case under the election law.”
Pennsylvania Commonwealth’s Attorney Robert Wiygul told the Supreme Court that they should not intervene in the case. He said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made the move at a time of a Chinese Communist virus pandemic and delays in the U.S. Postal Service.
“It is undisputed that the total number of ballots challenged by plaintiffs is lower than the margin of victory in every federal election in Pennsylvania. Moreover, the total number of ballots certified in Pennsylvania does not include any of the ballots challenged by plaintiffs.” He wrote.
Recent Comments