Politics

Clarence Thomas: ‘Citizens Deserve Better’ Than Supreme Court Refusing To Hear PA Election Case

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in his dissent to the Supreme Court's decision not to hear a challenge to Pennsylvania mail-in voting and election procedures, claims the institution has invited an "erosion of voter confidence."

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in his dissent to the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a challenge to Pennsylvania mail-in voting procedures, claims the institution has invited an “erosion of voter confidence.”

The challenge was against the Pennsylvania state court’s ruling that permitted ballots to be counted up to three days after Election Day.

Thomas added that the “citizens deserve better” than what the Court had just done regarding the case.

MORE NEWS: Gretchen Whitmer Orders Masks To Be Worn Inside Michigan Smoking Lounges ‘At All Times’

“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling,” he wrote. “By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”

Thomas proceeded to state that the lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud is of “only small comfort.”

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not?

“An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence,” he continued.

RELATED: Report: John Kerry ‘Colluded’ And Engaged In ‘Shadow Diplomacy’ With Iran To Undermine Trump

Clarence Thomas Signals Election Fraud Concerns Need to Be Addressed

MORE NEWS: Liz Cheney Says Republicans Need To Make It Clear That ‘We Aren’t The Party Of White Supremacy’

CNN reports that Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent “claimed election fraud is a threat to America,” something “election law experts” have “debunked.”

Thomas though was referencing the fact that the refusal to hear the case – something he called “inexplicable” – would cause problems in future elections.

“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election,” he observes. “But that may not be the case in the future.”

This past September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots would be counted up to three days after the election, even if they lack a legible postmark.

The court stated that ballots counted during the extension period must be postmarked by the close of polls on Election Day.

The AP, however, noted that “ballots can be counted if they lack a postmark, a legible postmark or some proof of mailing,” with the only disqualifying feature being if a “preponderance of the evidence” shows it was mailed after Election Day.

RELATED: NY Journalist Accuses Cuomo Of ‘Terrorizing’ Him For Doing His Job As A Reporter

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Clarence Thomas in their dissent, suggesting the majority should hear the Pennsylvania election dispute to clarify rules for the future.

“There is ‘reasonable expectation’ that the parties will face the same question in the future,” Alito warned. “And that the question will evade future pre-election review, just as it did in these cases.”

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) late last year referenced all three when discussing the Pennsylvania election case.

The three Justices, Cruz wrote, had already declared that “there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.'”

Why are Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch the only three members of the nation’s highest court concerned about the integrity of future elections in America?

This piece originally appeared in ThePoliticalInsider.com and is used by permission.

Read more at ThePoliticalInsider.com:
U.S. Women’s Soccer Team No Longer Kneels For National Anthem – What Changed?
Nearly 50% Of Trump Voters Say They Will Follow Him To Another Party And Abandon The GOP
Report: Trump Set To Deliver Speech Claiming ‘I’m Still In Charge’ Of GOP

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.

The Political Insider publishes the authentic conservative voices of political insiders and award-winning contributors who believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Each one is committed to combating the overwhelming liberal bias in today’s media to give you, the reader, the unedited facts on real issues.

Join the Discussion

COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.