U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., has spearheaded a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's expanded mail-in voting rules first adopted in 2019 as a clear viola
U.S. Rep. Kelly, R-Pa., asked the Supreme Court to invalidate 2.5 million ballots cast in Pennsylvania on Nov. 3 based on a law he says is unconstitutional.
Kelly and GOP congressional candidate Sean Parnell, who failed to unseat incumbent U.S. Rep. Conor Lamb, filed an emergency appeal that asked the court to halt certification of the state’s election results – finalized Nov. 24 by the Department of State – that handed Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes to former Vice President Joe Biden.
President Donald Trump and his reelection campaign allege widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania and other swing states rigged the contest against him. Biden carried the state by roughly 81,000 votes – a narrow lead that trickled in over five days as poll workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh tabulated mail-in ballots.
Kelly’s complaint argues that “no-excuse” mail-in voting privileges expanded under Act 77 of 2019 violates the state's constitution because it requires in-person voting except under very narrow circumstances. More than 2.5 million residents voted by mail last month, representing more than one third of all ballots cast in the state.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision handed down over the weekend dismissed Kelly’s lawsuit, saying he waited too long to challenge the 2019 law. The panel said the congressman only filed suit because he didn’t like the election results.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, accused the state court of partisan gamesmanship and urged the court to hear the appeal on the grounds of the “serious legal issues” it raises.
“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game,” he said. “If the state wants to change how voting occurs, they must follow the law to do so.”
Cruz also said that the state court's inconsistent application of the “laches” legal doctrine – dismissing a case because plaintiffs took too long to file it – means they can’t “selectively enforce it now.”
He said the judges held that Kelly lacked standing to challenge the law until after the election, too, “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,” he said. "The result of the court's gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.”
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito asked state officials file responses in the case by Dec. 9.
See also:
Conservative Lawmakers Call For Special Session Of Legislature To Consider Election Issues
Pa. Declares Biden As Winner Of State’s 2020 Presidential Election, Certifies Results
In Rare Move, Bipartisan Panel Rejects Pa. House Request To Audit 2020 Election
Federal Judge Throws Out Trump Campaign Lawsuit In Pennsylvania, Appeal Expected
Pa. GOP Advances Audit Of 2020 Election, Says It’s Not About Fraud
