WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed an attempt by GOP politicians in Pennsylvania to throw out President-Elect Joe Biden’s victory on Tuesday, explaining it wouldn’t grant the requested injunctive relief.
With a brief dismissal, the high court rejected a petition from Rep. Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, and two fellow Republican candidates who argued that all of the state’s mail-in ballots were illegally cast, and thus illegitimate.
As is standard for cases examined on an emergency basis, the Supreme Court decision was announced in a fashion with no dissents.
The entirety of the Supreme Court’s order read, “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”
President Donald Trump has refused to concede the election to Biden, though the Democrat and former vice president is projected to win 306 votes in the Electoral College on Dec. 14, 36 more votes than the victory threshold of 270.
Trump had repeatedly suggested that the Supreme Court would ultimately decide the outcome of the election, but thus far, the nation’s high court has not intervened.
Three Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed by the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate just days before the Nov. 3 election.
Kelly’s lawsuit claimed that Act 77, a 2019 state law which paved the way for mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, violated state constitution limits on when voters are permitted to use an absentee ballot – and as a result, asked the Supreme Court to nullify Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf’s certification of the state’s vote, finalized on Nov. 24.
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania told the Supreme Court that the relief requested in Kelly’s petition stood as the “most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic.”
“Granting an injunction would sow chaos and confusion across the nation while inflaming baseless concerns about electoral impropriety and ensnaring the judiciary in partisan strife,” Pennsylvania’s attorneys stated.
Pennsylvania state courts previously agreed that Kelly’s initial challenge to Act 77, brought 13 months after the law had been passed, was untimely and violated the doctrine of laches.
Kelly’s lawsuit is one among dozens brought by conservatives nationwide seeking to overturn the results of the presidential election. Many of the suits have been unsuccessful, as the vast majority have been dismissed or withdrawn and none have called enough votes into question to overturn the election results.
Another example is the suit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday, which looks to throw out vote results in four states won by Biden, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan.
U.S. Supreme Court case 20-A-98
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com