Why won’t Supreme Court stop states from flouting their own election laws?

February 24, 2021
In The News

The Supreme Court has — regrettably, in our view — put an end to challenges over the way our state managed the 2020 election, and in doing so, allowed disgraced former Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar a minor victory in her forced retirement.

On Monday, the high court threw out Trump-administration challenges over election procedures in five states won by Joe Biden, Pennsylvania being one of them. Three of the justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — believed the court should rule on the issue in the Keystone State, not for the 2020 election (whose outcome would not have changed), but to provide guidance should such controversy arise in the future.

“By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence,” Thomas wrote.

The justices previously had turned away cases from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin, but were hampered by an open seat when the Pennsylvania case drew a 4-4 vote the first time it was presented.

The main issue of contention was an extended voting deadline put in place by Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration — Boockvar, in particular, was working on that gift to Democrats while failing to complete one of her basic constitutional duties, advertising a proposed amendment that would have benefited victims of one of the most heinous abuse scandals in our nation’s history.

The state Supreme Court — essentially, an extension of the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania — allowed the move, which clearly violates any plain reading of our laws or our constitution. That in turn led a contingent of Pennsylvania congressman to oppose the electors chosen under this blatantly illegal act (our own congressman, Rep. Fred Keller, is still being unfairly roasted on editorial pages across the 12th district just for doing his job).

And this doesn’t even address the shenanigans Wolf and Boockvar pulled with rules regarding unsigned ballots and other spoiled ballots (those not in the outer envelope, as prescribed by law).

We’re surprised and disappointed that no other justice would step in and allow this important issue to be decided — and fearful of what it will bring down the road, not just here but elsewhere.