A group of Republican attorneys general makes a Supreme Court bold move to challenge the flawed and inaccurate vote counts in a battleground state.
Joe Biden may have been named as the winner in Pennsylvania, but President Trump’s campaign raised serious allegations on the counting of ballots. On Sunday, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the number of ballots could be enough to flip the results.
Last week, SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito ordered state officials to separate the ballots received from Pennsylvania elections offices after the closure of poll stations.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt then filed an amicus brief with the high court to ensure that absentee ballots that arrived after November 4 are not counted.
Other Republican attorneys general from several states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas joined Schmitt.
“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision overstepped its constitutional authority and encroached on the authority granted to the Pennsylvania legislature,” argued the filing.
President Trump’s campaign attempts to overturn a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in allowing to count mail-in ballots after Election Day if arrived until Friday.
“The decision provided a window of time after Election Day, when the preliminary results were announced, in which unscrupulous actors could attempt to influence a close Presidential election in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” said the filing.
The attorneys general argued they have a right to mediate because “States outside Pennsylvania have a strong interest in preventing the effective invalidation of their own voter’s choices through illegal voting in Pennsylvania.”
The attorneys general raised the extensive history of mail-in ballots voter fraud. They said that for decades, the grave risks of fraud in voting by mail had been warned by responsible observers.
According to the campaign, the overwhelming evidence denotes the unique opportunities for fraud and abuse brought by voting by mail.
The filing concluded that fraud in mail-in voting frequently involves the alteration, interception, and fraudulent submission of mail-in or absentee ballots.
The group said that several similar schemes have occurred in previous years and have evaded detection over various election cycles, adding, it cannot be known how the several schemes could never be detected.
The campaign then argued that the Pennsylvania court’s decision had amplified the risk of fraudulent voting.