News Release – US Supreme Court Once Again Sidesteps the Issues with the PA November 2020 Election

News Release
For Immediate Release:  February 22, 2021
Contact:   Diane Gramley  1.814.271.9078

US Supreme Court Once Again Sidesteps the Issues with the PA November 2020 Election

(Harrisburg) — The US Supreme Court, like other courts across the battleground states, has again refused to look at the evidence of potential election fraud and unconstitutional actions.  Specifically, they have refused to look at the constitutionality of no-excuse mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, which was allowed under Act 77.  The plain text of the PA Constitution (Article 7, Section 14 (a) clearly provides for absentee ballots being made available if the voter requesting the ballot has a specific reason he or she cannot go in person to vote.  Other lawsuits that were dismissed were challenging the three-day extension for receiving mail-in ballots and the PA Supreme Court’s ruling that a legible postmark was not necessary to prove the ballot had been mailed by Election Day.  The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide group advocating for law and order and fair elections, is astonished the US Supreme Court once again side-stepped the questions in PA that still remain about the results of the November 3^rd election.

“The US Supreme Court could have eliminated any confusion over election laws prior to the November 3^rd election when first approached.   Their failure to do so caused much of the confusion across the Commonwealth and their decision to dismiss the cases is like a green light to those who reinterpreted the intent of the election laws passed by the legislature.  The continued sidestepping by the US Supreme Court does not give the voters of Pennsylvania any confidence in the integrity of future elections,” noted Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the cases and wrote: “The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead.”

They further wrote:

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respect- fully dissent.”

The AFA of PA totally agrees with the above assessment by Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

# # #