Pennsylvania Republicans on Tuesday once again urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review their lawsuit challenging the state’s 2020 election results, which has now been filed.
The group had asked the Supreme Court for an immediate order to prevent The state from certifying the 2020 election results, but the court refused.
At the time, Gregory Teufel, a lawyer for the group, said the case was not yet closed and Republican lawmakers were preparing a formal petition asking the court to review the suit.
The lawyers filed a WRit of Certiorari petition on December 11, which was filed on December 15, arguing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was wrong to dismiss their case because the judge deemed the plaintiffs to have been filing the certiorari because of unreasonable delay.
“This Court should not, like the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, turn a blind eye to unconstitutional electoral laws that allow massive dilution of the vote and have a significant impact on the outcome,” the petition (PDF) said.
The case is called Kelly V. Pennsylvania. The case found that Prop. 77 illegally sought to overturn restrictions on absentee voting in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The plaintiffs argue that the state constitution prohibits absentee voting in Pennsylvania, except in four limited circumstances.
The lawsuit alleges that the state law is “yet another attempt to unlawfully overturn the restrictions on absentee voting in the Pennsylvania Constitution, without first following the necessary procedures to amend the Constitution to allow for expanded voting.”
The lawsuit was brought by Republican Representative Mike Kelly and several Republican congressional candidates.
Republicans believe that the constitution of Pennsylvania has been to absentee voting limit, must have a fluctuation proposed amendments to the constitution, parliament endorsed in the referendum voters can enlarge the using range of absentee voting, and Pennsylvania since 1839 soldiers miss ballot file, the position of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, has always been requirements must have amendments to the constitution authorization, to enlarge the using range of absentee ballots.
Bill 77, signed into law on October 31, 2019 by Tom Wolf, then Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, allows the state to vote by mail without conditions. However, Bill 77 was enacted without due legislative process.
In late November, A federal judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia McCullough, issued a temporary injunction that would prevent the state from taking further steps to certify the presidential election.
In her view, “the petitioners appear to have established the possibility of success in their case by claiming that the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for an extension of absentee voting without amending the Constitution.”
She also considered that the petitioners appeared to have a viable proposition, namely, the procedure for postal voting provided for in Bill 77. It violates the written provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution about absentee voting.
However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs had brought their case too late and that county election boards were now required to certify the results, which could “result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters who voted by mail”.
Lawyers argue in the petition that there is a no-win situation for litigants who want to file lawsuits in accordance with the law.
“Pennsylvania does not allow voters or candidates to mount substantive constitutional challenges to laws governing the conduct of federal elections. Prior to an election, a voter or candidate may not be able to mount a challenge because he or she is not a party to the election.” He wrote.
“It will take until after the election to overcome this speculative damage. But now that it has happened, it is no longer speculative, but it is too late.” “He added.
The group has asked the court to declare Act 77 unconstitutional to prevent future harm caused by the law. It also asked the court to grant injunctive relief to mitigate the harm currently caused by the state law.
When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the case, they argued, they allowed the legislation to “sidestep any challenge” and indirectly “amended” the Pennsylvania Constitution, which they had no right to do.
They believe that “such a substantial attempt to amend the Constitution itself is unconstitutional”.
Recent Comments