At last, The Supreme Court listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.
Too little too late, but the Supreme Court is weighing in on high-profile election cases it will consider at its February conference.
Join Our Telegram channel here: https://t.me/TheTrueReporter
The Washington Examiner informed that among the potential cases are the challenges to the 2020 presidential election from controversial attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, both of them banned from Twitter, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania lawsuit.
On Friday, The Supreme Court categorized several high-profile election lawsuits for examination at its mid-February conference.
The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, along with Republican Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania lawsuit. Almost every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by a number of states.
The decision is a result of the court’s decline to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.
Lawyers supporting former President Donald Trump told the court in almost every plea for an expedition that if the cases were not heard before President Biden’s inauguration, chances are they will not be successful.
Yet, after the court pushed them off, many lawyers claimed that the challenges were still significant and could have a long-term impact on election fairness.
Trump lawyer John Eastman said that although Trump is out of office, it was important to resolve the problems raised by extensive mail-in voting.
“Our legal issue remains important in need of the court’s review,” he said, referring to Pennsylvania’s actions at the time of the 2020 presidential election.
Kelly’s lawsuit argued that the state of Pennsylvania disobeyed its own Constitution by alternating the mail-in election rules without having it done by the state legislature and that “no-excuse” mail-in voting “violated the state constitution’s limits on who can cast an absentee ballot.”
Initially, the certification of the election results was stopped by the ruling of Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia A. McCullough.
In a November memorandum, McCullough noted:
“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment.
Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.”
In January, a Virginia Circuit judge determined that the decision made by the state was illegal, to allow mail-in ballots to arrive and be counted late and without a postmark.
Although the ruling did not affect the recent elections, it will permanently stop the Virginia State Board of Elections from having absentee ballots accepted and counted without postmarks that arrive up to three days after Election Day, as stated by the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
The damage to the elections is already done, but all the actions being taken by state legislatures now, and decisions being made by judges, will help prevent such incidents in the future.
Join Our Telegram channel here: https://t.me/TheTrueReporter
Source: Washington Examiner
