Sen. Cruz Says He Would 'be Happy' to Argue Pennsylvania Voting Case in Supreme Court: 'It's a Pure Issue of Law'

Susan Jones | December 8, 2020 | 5:54am EST
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

( - Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has agreed to argue the Pennsylvania mail-in voting case before the U.S. Supreme Court, if the court agrees to hear the Trump campaign's appeal.

And the court should hear it, Cruz told Fox News's Sean Hannity Monday night:

You know, we're seeing across the country lawsuits that are challenging voter fraud, that are challenging irregularities in the election, and in Pennsylvania, this appeal to the Supreme Court raises very serious issues. It raises pure issues of law. And I believe the Supreme Court should choose to take the case. I think they should hear the appeal.

And as you noted, the legal team reached out and asked if I would be willing to present the oral argument if the court took the case, and I told them I'd be happy to. Because particularly at a time when this country is so divided, when people are so angry, I think we need a sense of resolution and we need the Supreme Court to step in and ensure that we are following the Constitution and following the law.

Right now, it's not healthy for democracy what we're seeing, and in Pennsylvania, the problem was made worse because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a partisan, Democratic court that has issued multiple decisions that were just on their face contrary to law. And that's not how elections are supposed to work.

Cruz said the Pennsylvania case, unlike some of the other legal challenges, does not involve "disputed questions of fact."

He said the Pennsylvania Constitution “has very explicit limits on voting, and in most circumstances, requires in-person voting.”

And the Pennsylvania Legislature this spring passed a law that violates the express terms of the Constitution, that set up the stage for universal mail-in voting, which, as you know, there's been a long pattern -- mail-in voting is much more susceptible to fraud, much more susceptible to irresponsible partisans operatives trying to steal votes.

And in Pennsylvania, the question that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to consider is whether a state can change the rules in the middle of the process and do so in a way that has a potential partisan advantage, contrary to law. I think the answer to that should be no.

Cruz admitted that timing is the major concern, as the electors will cast their ballots on December14.

"So the time is running out of the hourglass. I think the Supreme Court feels the urgency of that. That's the reason why Justice Alito set the deadline for Pennsylvania's response to this lawsuit to be tomorrow (Tuesday), so that we'll have a response. We could have a decision as early as tomorrow from the Supreme Court whether or not they'll take the case."

Cruz noted that the Supreme Court takes only about 80 of the 8,000 appeals that are filed in any given year, so getting the court to take a case is not easy:

"I think the court should consider it," Cruz said. "There will be justices who would prefer to stay out of this, who would prefer to protect their own credibility, essentially to protect their backsides. I think that's the wrong thing to do here.

"I think, when you look at a country where 39 percent of Americans right now believe this last election was rigged, that's a real problem for confidence in the integrity of our electoral system.

"And so I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will step forward to its responsibility and resolve this case and resolve other cases as needed according to law and according to the Constitution, to say, this is a country where we respect the rule of law, where we follow the Constitution, not the momentary partisan swells of interest or passion you may see on either side."

mrc merch