News and Commentary

Cruz Presses Supreme Court: Hear The Emergency Appeal On PA Election Results
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 24: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asks a question during an oversight hearing to examine the Federal Communications Commission on Capitol Hill on June 24, 2020 in Washington, DC. The hearing was held by the Senate Committee for Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Jonathan Newton-Pool/Getty Images

On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) publicly called on the Supreme Court to hear an emergency appeal challenging the election results in Pennsylvania, arguing that the Democrat-led Pennsylvania legislature’s vote last year to allow universal mail-in voting flew in the face of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition of such a move.

Cruz wrote, “Today, 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.”

“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances,” Cruz explained. “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,” he continued. “If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.”

Cruz noted that the Democrat legislature was backed by what he called “the partisan Democrat Supreme Court” in Pennsylvania, noting that three U.S. Supreme Court justices had stated that there was a strong possibility that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had violated the U.S. Constitution:

The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued 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.”

Cruz  continued:

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.”


Cruz addressed the Supreme Court directly: “Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times.”

