Fox contributor argues U.S. Supreme Court should throw out Pennsylvania votes
Trey Gowdy: U.S. Supreme Court should tell the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that it's “not your job to set election law.”
Published
Citation From the November 5, 2020, edition of America's Newsroom
TREY GOWDY: There is this battle of competing mantras. One mantra is count every vote. The other mantra, and you used the word lawful, count every lawful vote. So, I know it's confusing for your viewers, but our Constitution allows the states to set the rules. But the rules themselves have to be constitutional. They have to be set by the state legislatures. They have to be applied, and then they have to be applied equally. So, the litigation in Pennsylvania -- the litigation is who the rules? Remember the Pennsylvania legislature didn't allow for this three-day grace period. That was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and for reasons I'll never understand, our U.S. Supreme Court punted on it. In Nevada, it's a different issue. In Georgia, it's a different issue. So, who sets the rules? Are the rules constitutional themselves? And then are they being applied fairly? That's what the litigation will be around.
...
GOWDY: Well, you know, the Supreme Court does not have to weigh in at all. I mean, I think people think eventually that they will, particularly in Pennsylvania. But they don't have to. There is no original jurisdiction in election law. And this kind of gets back to the Pennsylvania state legislature. I mean, think about it, Martha. What in the world is more predictable than Election Day? We knew 150 years ago that we were going to have an election on Tuesday. So, the Pennsylvania legislature knew we were going to have an election, and they knew we were in the midst of a pandemic. But yet, they did not allow for ballots to come in after Election Day. So, how does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court get to kind of overrule the legislature? I think it's a pretty clear legal analysis but we won't know if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't takes it. And there is no obligation that they will.
...
GOWDY: If you are in Pennsylvania what are you supposed to do, not count votes even though your own Supreme Court said it was okay to do so? Which makes it really, really infuriating that the U.S. Supreme Court kind of tried to duck and hide. I mean, I -- they need to show a little more courage on this and tell the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 'You know what? That's not your job to set election law. The Constitution says legislature -- if you want to run for that, you can but you didn't, you ran for the Supreme Court.'