The U.S. Supreme Court has once again upset countless conservatives with a ruling related to the validity of November’s presidential election.
According to reports, the high court on Monday refused to hear cases related to the legality of changes to mail-in voting in Pennsylvania prior to Election Day.
Three conservative justices dissent
Three conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito — dissented, arguing that the court left important questions unanswered with potential implications for future elections.
At the center of these rejected cases are assertions by former President Donald Trump and many of his allies who have complained that Democratic state officials changed voting procedures and protocols unilaterally — and illegally — in swing states. Critics say these changes undermined election integrity and made voter fraud easier to perpetuate.
The controversy cast a long and dark shadow over the race, leaving millions of Americans with residual doubts regarding the manner in which the winner was decided. Although the contest has been clearly decided in President Joe Biden’s favor, the Supreme Court still refuses to address these lingering questions.
Justices shot down a challenge from Pennsylvania Republicans related to that state’s Supreme Court allowance for mail-in ballots received up to three days after the election to be counted.
The matter remained unresolved when it first appeared before the Supreme Court in October, shortly before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“An ideal opportunity”
At that time, the court was evenly split on the issue, declining to take it up again on an expedited basis when Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as a justice.
The high court did not include an explanation for its rejection of the cases. Trump nominees Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joined liberals on the court.
In his statement of dissent, Thomas criticized how election rules were changed “in the middle of the game,” claiming that the court had abdicated its responsibility to settle important questions related to election integrity.
“These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable,” he wrote.