Supreme Court declines to take up Trump Pennsylvania election cases


The Supreme Court of the United States recently declined to consider several cases that challenged a Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision allowing relaxed “ballot-integrity measures.” That includes extending the deadline for ballots by three days, shortly before the November 3rd presidential election.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissent to the decision:

These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address
just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election
rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.
The refusal to do so is inexplicable.

An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different
officials dispute who has authority to set or change
those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because
voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse,
with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates
might each declare victory under different sets of
rules.

That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the
rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule
changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even
worse. When those changes alter election results, they can
severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the
authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If
not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the
consequences become catastrophic.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissent, 2/22/21

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas in the dissent.

Click here to read Justice Thomas’ full dissent


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 thoughts on “Supreme Court declines to take up Trump Pennsylvania election cases”

  1. We obviously have only 3 Supreme Court Justices that care one whit about their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. To have a majority ruling go against our desires would be disappointing. To have more than half the Court say “nothing to see here” is truly appalling.

Scroll to Top