Trump Campaign Issues New Challenge To The Supreme Court Regarding Pennsylvania Election Results

President Donald Trump's campaign team has issued an appeal to the US. Supreme Court to reverse Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases that changed mail-in voting laws.

The campaign is seeking to reverse three cases decided by the state Supreme Court just before and after the 2020 presidential election that "unlawfully" changed the mail-in voting laws, arguing that the Supreme Court's decisions violated Article II of the Constitution and the Bush v. Gore ruling of 2000.

The lawsuit is seeking “all appropriate remedies,” which includes the vacating of electors that were committed to Joe Biden and allowing the Pennsylvania Legislature to call up their own electors. With the Electoral College voting on December 14, the Pennsylvania Republican Party said its own voters had voted for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence to sustain legal challenges in the state.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated regarding the case “The Campaign also moved for expedited consideration, asking the Supreme Court to order responses by December 23 and a reply by December 24 to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before Congress meets on January 6 to consider the votes of the electoral college." He also added “This represents the Campaign’s first independent U.S. Supreme Court filing and seeks relief based on the same Constitutional arguments successfully raised in Bush v. Gore.”

In addition, the lawsuit will seek to reverse several decisions that have undone Pennsylvania lawmakers' protections against absentee ballot fraud.

The lawsuit states that these laws prohibited election officials from checking whether ballots sent by mail during election day were genuine, deprived certain campaigns of the right to challenge ballots if they were canvassed for forged signatures or other issues, barred election observers from getting close enough to the vote count in some areas, such as Philadelphia, and eliminated the legal requirement that voters must properly sign, address, and date postal ballots.

Trump’s lawyer John Eastman said that “Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature,” adding there are more than enough ballots involved to affect the final election outcome.

Eastman requested that the Supreme Court require Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar to respond to the campaign's submission by noon December 23. Boockvar's office did not respond to a request for comment by the press deadline.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, claiming that those states made unconstitutional changes to their election laws. In a 7-2 ruling not to hear the case, the court said Texas lacked standing, which Trump and other conservatives condemned.

Meanwhile, Republican Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against the state's top executive, claiming that it has unconstitutionally changed its absentee ballot laws, after the Supreme Court previously denied the group's request for an immediate injunction. This was done to prevent Pennsylvania from taking additional steps to confirm the 2020 election results.

Kelly's attorneys filed a motion for a writ of certiorari on December 11, which is when an appellate court decides to review a case at its discretion, but was docketed on December 15 by the court, which argued the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was wrong to dismiss their case because the judges thought the plaintiffs had filed their case with unwarranted delay.

The petition read “This Court should not turn a blind eye to unconstitutional election laws that permit massive vote dilution and have a significant impact on election outcomes, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did.”

The lawsuit alleges that the law is another illegal attempt to override the restrictions on absentee ballots enshrined in the Pennsylvania Constitution without first following the necessary constitutional amendment process to allow the expansion.