Doubting Thomas was right on Pennsylvania election suit

Why would the Democrats need to stack the Supreme Court? They already have the votes according to Monday’s ruling challenging the Pennsylvania Nov. 3 election results.

I side with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent on whether the High Court should review the violations of both Pennsylvania and the US Constitutions in changing voter laws by officials and not through the state legislators.

Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all disagreed to join the majority in the 6-3 vote. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.

While Thomas admitted that there may not be enough presidential votes to overturn the election, there was enough to review that the “changing over the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough.”

β€œThat decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” Thomas wrote.

In his dissent conclusion Thomas questioned what could be in the future.

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.”

As I stated earlier, I am not looking to overturn an election either, but to not move forward to review whether state election officials can unilaterally change election laws without legislative action as per the US Constitution can only lead to more voter doubt.

I’ll let Justice Thomas conclude, “The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”