Ted Cruz to represent Trump Pennsylvania team if SCOTUS hears election case
Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
December 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In case the United States Supreme Court chooses to hear the Trump campaign’s lawsuit challenging mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has announced that he has agreed to present the oral arguments.
The lawsuit, brought by Rep. Mike Kelly, seeks to invalidate Pennsylvania’s 2.5 million mail-in ballots on the grounds that the state constitution only allows votes to be cast by mail in certain circumstances, and the generalized mail voting allowed this year (ostensibly in the name of avoiding COVID-19) would have required a constitutional amendment to be legitimate.
Justice Samuel Alito had previously given the state until December 9, the day of the “safe harbor” deadline for resolving Electoral College disputes, to submit their response to the Supreme Court. On Sunday, he moved it up a day, ensuring the court would have time to act on it if they chose to.
“Petitioners’ legal team has asked me whether I would be willing to argue the case before [the Supreme Court], if the Court grants certiorari,” Cruz announced Monday. “I have agreed, and told them that, if the Court takes the appeal, I will stand ready to present the oral argument. As I said last week, the bitter division and acrimony we see across the Nation needs resolution. I believe [the Supreme Court] has a responsibility to the American People to ensure, within its powers, that we are following the law and following the Constitution.”
Attorneys for Pennsylvania’s Democrat Gov. Tom Wolfe responded Tuesday by submitting to the Supreme Court a filing calling the suit “nothing less than an affront to constitutional democracy,” which “should meet a swift and decisive end."
Cruz, a former Texas Solicitor General who has previously argued eight cases before the Supreme Court, said last week the Supreme Court should hear the suit because it “raises serious legal issues” that impugn “confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”
“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances,” he argued. “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. The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases.”
Pennsylvania, whose 20 electoral votes have been called for Democrat Joe Biden and must be flipped (along with several other states) if Donald Trump is to remain in the White House, has been a hotbed of controversy over allegations of fraud, Republican observers blocked from watching the counting, and the counting of late absentee ballots in violation of state law.