Supreme Court Gives Pennsylvania High Court a Pass for Overturning Election Laws

The U.S. Supreme court upheld a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that violated the black letter, meaning clearly written, law. The U.S. Constitution gives states the power to oversee federal elections.  The Pennsylvania state legislature passed a law that required mail-in ballots to be received by the evening of election day. The State Supreme Court unilaterally extended that deadline three days past election day, claiming the interest of fairness.

The State Supreme Court has no such power. The Republican Party of Pennsylvania filed suit over roughly 10,000 ballots that arrived after the deadline in the November election. There were not enough ballots to change the outcome for the state, but a ruling by the Supreme Court would have outlined which entity, the courts or the legislature, had authority.

The Supreme Court declined to take the case.

Three of the nine-member court’s six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case.

In his dissent, Thomas said the Supreme Court should resolve whether non-legislators, including elections officials and courts, have any power to set election rules, which runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution.  Thomas said it was fortunate that the state high court’s ruling did not involve enough ballots to affect the election’s outcome.

Thomas wrote:

“But we may not be so lucky in the future.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with the state’s Democratic Party and various Democratic officials and candidates who argued that an Election Day mail-in ballot receipt deadline would violate the state constitution’s guarantee of “free and equal” elections given the pandemic and warnings by the U.S. Postal Service over its ability to deliver ballots in time.

The state Republican Party intervened in the case to oppose the deadline extension. It argued that the state court usurped the Republican-controlled legislature’s authority in ordering the extension.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, told the justices in a filing that particularly given Trump’s repeated attempts to overturn the election result based on unfounded claims of voting fraud, “the court should not plunge itself into the political thicket by granting a case that will not affect the outcome of any election.”

See Comments (16)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Comments (16)

  1. Samuel Meachem

    No, those ones that were brought in from that lawsuit, but there were 200,000 more votes then people who voted in PA. What happens there. The SCOTUS has not done their job. The PA Supreme Court has a 9 Democrats on it. More than the Republicans and they should be impeached for going back on the U.S. Constitution. Actually impeachment is too good for them. They should be charged with TREASON and jailed for the rest of their lives.

    • Mary

      Pelosi and her gang wants to erase the Trump Presidency. That is why Biden has spent two months sitting at desk signing Executive Orders. Pelosi wants to erase and cancel everything back to Obama presidency. She is trying to annihilate: 2016-2020.That is why there is all former Obama admin in administration. She will even re-establish all foreign and domestic policies and steal all money in the purse. What she is doing is treasonous. The Ways and Means and the Purse belongs to the Legal American People- -not Pelosi- the thief. She is destroying the USA and stealing 3 trillion to give the money to her pet project: illegal aliens. Time for Pelosi to GO!

  2. GS

    We now have no elections, especially if H.R. 1 is executed, no laws and no court system. And at least half of the country knows this…….

    • Panamacarol

      Isn’t that the truth! These leftist are insane. I am not sure there is a rational mind in the SCOTUS.

  3. Michael R. Lackner

    If we do not have fair and transparent elections, what is the use in even having elections anymore?

    • Donald Miller

      Michael R. lackner ,
      Your statement may be the point !

  4. Carol Adams

    The Amount for Federal Employees to stay home, was not $21,000…it was 21 Million, of taxpayer

    • Toni careon

      There were potholes all over this election that should have been, or should still be corrected. Those judges on SCOTUS that voted against doing the right thing are not doing what they pledged to do. It’s to the point that Leftists don’t even get a slap on the hand for breaking laws, violating the constitution, harvesting votes, counting ballots out of suitcases at closed pool facilities, etc., or misusing their powers & GOVT. Courts to carry out illegal & unconstitutional activities to interfere in the 2016 election, by conniving with British, Russian and other foreign OPS, paying a foreign OP to create false evidence to defraud U.S. Courts and the American people, and to use to frame up a U.S. President…. etc., etc., etc

  5. Samuel Meachem

    Why is the Federal Supreme court so against Donald Trump. Everybody knows that this does not go with the PA Constitution and the PA Supreme court has overstepped their bounaries. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court allows it and is overstepping their boundaries.

    • Bret

      The US Supreme Court was specifically created to hear cases of voter fraud in the presidential election now they refuse to do their jobs, no job no pay they should be cut off from receiving a paycheck for at least 1 year for not hearing the elected presidents voter fraud cases!!!

  6. Mary White

    The question, “Did the elected officials violate black letter law” and violate the Constitution. The collateral issue, I.e. It would not have affected the outcome of the election…doesn’t matter. Violating the law is not ever O.K. Just because it did or didn’t have a negative affect doesn’t make any difference. By not ruling on the real Issue, SCOTUS has only made these types of cases even more perilous in the future. There is an erosion of trust in elections which is enhanced by SCOTUS doing nothing. If not nipped in the bud now, it will only have a chilling affect on any TRUST in elections or the courts. The Justices may find themselves out of a job for they will be a laughing stock…totally useless therefore, unnecessary.

  7. Scooter60

    They should take it up so we the people know we’re having a fair election. Get up off your butts and go vote. Are to lazy to actually make the effort? Apparently they were. I’m old and I managed to go stand in line for 4 1/2 hours to vote. I’m disabled but I did it and I believe every able bodied person should vote in person and we should show ID!

  8. Donald Miller

    I see that Liberal Democrat censure ship is alive and well . I have been censured off this comment site !

  9. Marilyn M Lindsay

    The justices on the Supreme Court should take a refresher course in law. Judge Janine and Mark Levin have a lot more knowledge, courage, and wisdom that the majority of Justices. Pathetic or compromised, or evil. Pathetic. No common sense. They all will go down in history books as traitors or idiots. Have to thank Thomas and Alito because they tried. I don’t know shy I was s excited about Barrett being appointed to this court. She hasn’t done one thing for this nation or according to the Constitution.

  10. Ada

    There should be a one day Holiday Voting Only. NO extra days at all. In person voting only with a Valid Picture ID Drivers License or Military ID, State Issue Picture ID, or Military ID Card. No Exceptions.
    Voting in person. Or Military Personnel out of Country or Home State.
    Homebound people with a License Doctor order also with Valid Picture ID.

  11. David Bruce Allen

    Another case where SCOTUS has refused to see the evidence.
    SCOTUS is in fact AWOL from their proper duties at best!
    SCOTUS is guilty of Treason at worst.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!