| 
		U.S. Supreme Court formally pulls the plug on election-related cases
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [February 23, 2021] 
		By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley 
 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme 
		Court on Monday brought a formal end to eight lingering disputes pursued 
		by former President Donald Trump and his allies related to the Nov. 3 
		presidential election including a Republican challenge to the extension 
		of Pennsylvania's deadline to receive mail-in ballots.
 
 The justices turned away appeals by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania 
		and Republican members of the state legislature of a ruling by 
		Pennsylvania's top court ordering officials to count mail-in ballots 
		that were postmarked by Election Day and received up to three days 
		later.
 
 Three of the nine-member court's six conservative justices - Clarence 
		Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - dissented from the decision not 
		to hear the Pennsylvania case.
 
 Trump, a Republican, lost his re-election bid to Democrat Joe Biden, who 
		took office on Jan. 20. Biden defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes 
		in Pennsylvania and the legal case focused on fewer than 10,000 ballots.
 
		
		 
		
 The high court, as expected, also rejected two Trump appeals challenging 
		Biden's victories in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin based on claims that the 
		rules for mail-in ballots in the two election battleground states were 
		invalid. The court also turned away separate cases brought by Trump 
		allies in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Arizona - all states won 
		by Biden.
 
 It already was clear that the high court had no intention to intervene 
		in the cases because it did not act before Congress on Jan. 6 certified 
		Biden's victory. That formal certification was interrupted when a 
		pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol. The court also turned down 
		motions to expedite the election cases.
 
 Trump made claims that the presidential election was stolen from 
		him through widespread voting fraud and irregularities.
 
 The case brought by Pennsylvania Republicans concerned 9,428 ballots out 
		of 6.9 million cast in the state. The Supreme Court previously rejected 
		a Republican request to block the lower court ruling allowing the 
		ballots to be counted.
 
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
            
			The female figure called the Contemplation of Justice is seen in a 
			general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S. 
			July 2, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo 
            
			 
            In his dissent, Thomas said the Supreme Court should resolve whether 
			non-legislators, including elections officials and courts, have any 
			power to set election rules. Thomas said it was fortunate that the 
			state high court's ruling did not involve enough ballots to affect 
			the election's outcome.
 "But we may not be so lucky in the future," Thomas wrote.
 
 The election dispute in Pennsylvania, like in several other states, 
			involved changes implemented to facilitate voting during the 
			coronavirus pandemic, a public health crisis that prompted a surge 
			in mail-in ballots as voters sought to avoid crowded polling places.
 
 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with the state's Democratic 
			Party and various Democratic officials and candidates who argued 
			that an Election Day mail-in ballot receipt deadline would violate 
			the state constitution's guarantee of "free and equal" elections 
			given the pandemic and warnings by the U.S. Postal Service over its 
			ability to deliver ballots in time.
 
 The state Republican Party intervened in the case to oppose the 
			deadline extension. It argued that the state court usurped the 
			Republican-controlled legislature's authority in ordering the 
			extension.
 
 Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, told the 
			justices in a filing that particularly given Trump's repeated 
			attempts to overturn the election result based on unfounded claims 
			of voting fraud, "the court should not plunge itself into the 
			political thicket by granting a case that will not affect the 
			outcome of any election."
 
 (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and Lawrence Hurley in 
			Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)
 
			[© 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2021 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |