Skip to content

The court’s action is the latest sign that the judges have no interest in cases concerning the 2020 election results. Lawyers for the Republicans had argued that the state court had overstepped its authority and should have let it stand. a deadline for polling day passed by the state legislature. Democrats responded that the state court was within its authority to protect the right to vote in the midst of a pandemic.

Last October, judges rejected a request by Republicans in Pennsylvania to review the decision on an expedited basis, the second time the court has considered the Pennsylvania issue.

The ballots in question amounted to around 10,000 votes – a number not large enough to have had an impact on President Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

The battlefield state case has been of great interest to voting rights experts who want to see if the Supreme Court could limit what state courts can do when interpreting their own. laws. Before the election, judges have already signaled to federal courts that they should not step in to change the rules too close to an election.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, celebrated the decision on Facebook, saying the state “had a free and fair election – that’s a fact.”

He added: “Thank you to the millions of voters who turned out to make their voices heard and to the election workers and volunteers who served admirably. It is time to move on.”

Republicans behind the challenge admitted they were not challenging the 2020 election results. But they said the state’s Supreme Court, by allowing a change in voting deadlines, usurped the authority of the legislature of State.

Jones Day attorney John M. Gore told justices that the Constitution reserves “a special role” for state legislatures “in setting the rules for federal elections.” In this case, they said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “inadmissibly changed the electoral rules that fall under the state legislature.”

Lawyers for the Pennsylvania Democrats told judges that the state court’s reliance on the state constitution to “make a reasonable and modest adjustment to postal voting procedures in response to a health crisis extraordinary publicity and the self-declared deficiencies of the US Postal Service “should not raise constitutional concerns.

They also argued that, since the dispute concerned the now concluded 2020 elections, it had “no lasting significance” and should be considered moot.

In total, judges on Monday dismissed eight cases. It was only in cases brought by Republicans in Pennsylvania that some judges publicly expressed their dissent.

This story has been updated with comment from Governor Wolf.

.


Source link