2020 Election Disputes
The 2020 Presidential Election was undecided after November 3rd election day due to mail in ballots. Many disputes have arisen about timing, legality, & fraud during the counting of these ballots post-election day. Political & legal maneuvering will continue until these disputes are cleared up or the Supreme Court decides on them. Only then will a new President be declared from the 2020 Election. It has been known since the election process was expanded to include massive mail-in ballots due to COVID, that whichever side loses will consider the election fraudulent and stolen by the other side.

"It was a mistake not to have heard this case...'

from The Gray Area:

It is clear that this case, REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA 20–542 v.VERONICA DEGRAFFENREID, ACTING SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., originally known as Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, but then respondent Kathy Boockvar resigned as Pennsylvania’s secretary of state and was replaced by Veronica Degraffenreid, deserved to be heard by the Supreme Court.

“There were a few states that did not follow their state laws, that’s really the dispute that you’ve seen continue on,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch all dissented from the denial saying this case needed to be made clear for future elections.

“The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules”, Alito quoted.

Thomas said it was a mistake to ignore the controversy.

Justice Thomas is right, this is a mistake. The idea that even though 'the number of votes at issue would not call into question Biden’s victory' is totally irrelevant to the Constitutional question. At some future point there may be enough votes, so will that make the case reviewable by the Court? A little too late then I would say.

But, that is the real question. What precedent does allowing these actions to go unchallenged present for future elections? The options are only limited by imagination. In which case someone will bring suit. Those potential suits may not be allowed either because they are presented 'too early' before an election. Which, then, if delayed, would be denied as having been introduced too late. Both of which occurred in Pennsylvania already.

At some point, a Constitutional decision must be addressed. It cannot be avoided by this Court forever. However, Chief Justice Roberts has a record of avoiding difficult cases, so it seems unlikely he will ever allow one to come under his watch.

And, where were Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett on this?

We are left to wonder.

More From Supreme Court.gov:

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )