Image Credit: Susan Walsh - Pool/Getty Images 
The US Supreme Court needs to hear the Trump campaign’s emergency appeal in Pennsylvania due to the severe constitutional violations involved, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) urged Tuesday.
In a press release, Sen. Cruz explained Democrats subverted the legal process by allowing universal mail-in voting via a bill (Act 77) passed in Oct. 2019, even though changes to election laws require constitutional ratification, according to the state’s constitution.
“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.”
The Trump campaign’s 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.”
Additionally, Cruz says the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has demonstrated bias on the part of its Democrat liberal judges, and has ignored opinions by SCOTUS Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch claiming the state high court’s permitting mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day possibly “violates the Federal Constitution.”
Moreover, Cruz lays out how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court attempted to preclude legal challenges from the Trump campaign by claiming the time to bring forth such claims had expired, but also denied the campaign’s legal challenges prior to the election, claiming they lacked standing.
“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.”
SCOTUS should generally stay out of state election disputes, Cruz acknowledges, however, “these are not ordinary times.”
“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,” Cruz wrote. “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.”
Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazar
On Twitter: Follow @AdanSalazarWins
On Parler: https://parler.com/profile/adansalazar/
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735
On Minds: https://www.minds.com/adan_infowars
Learn Why Trump Knows He’s Already Won And Why Biden Is So Scared