Texas Senator and former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz called out the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday for not rushing to hear the matter of challenging the election results in the swing state of Pennsylvania.
Cruz, who has had not only an illustrious career in politics, but served as Texas Solicitor General for five years, and is a graduate of Harvard Law School, is no stranger to legalities or the grime of the political system.
The Lone Star State’s junior senator began his letter, which he posted to Twitter, by calling readers attention to “an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis,” Cruz said, noting that it was submitted on Tuesday.
Cruz went on to lay out his argument about why the nation’s high court should hear the case, saying that, “The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.
“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.”
The senator then accused the “partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania,” of compounding the “illegality” by issuing “multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases. Just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote-correctly, I believe-concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that ‘there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.’
“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. 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.
“Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times.
“As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘the election was rigged.’ That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”
Cruz’s plea to the Supreme Court is one that reflects the urgency felt by many Americans who not only see their election system corrupted by would appears to be massive voter fraud, but the potential of a damaging presence in the Oval Office to loom over the next four years seems to drive home the innate urgency and need for action.
As Benjamin Franklin once told us, we have been given a Republic, perhaps the Supreme Court will soon see fit to help us keep it.