It is too little and too late but the Supreme Court is finally weighing in on high-profile election cases it will consider at its February conference.
The potential cases include challenges to the 2020 presidential election from controversial attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, both of whom have been banned from Twitter, along with Republican Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania lawsuit, the Washington Examiner reported.
The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.
The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.
The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.
"*" indicates required fields
In nearly every plea for an expedition, lawyers backing former President Donald Trump told the court that if the cases were not heard before President Biden’s inauguration, their success would be unlikely.
But after the court pushed them off, many lawyers said that the challenges were still important and could have long-term implications for election fairness. Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Washington Examiner that even with Trump out of office, it was important to settle the issues raised by expanded mail-in voting.
“Our legal issue remains important in need of the court’s review,” former President Donald Trump’s attorney John Eastman said to the Examiner, a reference to Pennsylvania’s actions during the 2020 presidential election.
Kelly’s lawsuit argued that the state of Pennsylvania violated its own Constitution by changing the mail-in election rules sans having it done by the state legislature and that “no-excuse” mail-in voting “violated the state constitution’s limits on who can cast an absentee ballot.”
Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia A. McCullough originally ruled to halt the certification of the election results.
“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment,” the judge said in a November memorandum.
“Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim,” she said.
In January a Virginia Circuit judge ruled that the decision made by the state at the last minute to allow mail-in ballots to arrive and be counted late and without a postmark was illegal.
The ruling, though having no effect on the 2020 elections, will permanently stop the Virginia State Board of Elections from having absentee ballots accepted and counted without postmarks that arrive up to three days after Election Day, according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
All the actions being taken by state legislatures now, and decisions being made by judges, will help prevent this in the future but the damage to the 2020 election is already done.