Monday, August 2

Attorney Representing GOP Rep. Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell Asks US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Pennsylvania’s Mail-In Voting

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday evening reversed a lower court’s block on certifying the state’s elections issued Friday night, dismissing with prejudice a lawsuit brought by Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives that sought to have the results nullified over constitutional concerns about a 2019 change in absentee ballot rules.

The lead plaintiffs in the case are Rep. Mike Kelly and Republican congressional candidate Sean Parnell.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said the suit was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to file their case in a “timely manner” when Act 77 was passed in 2019.

On Tuesday, Gregory H. Teufel, an attorney representing Rep. Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell filed a 40-page emergency application for injunction and petition directed toward US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

TRENDING: WATCH LIVE… USPS WHISTLEBLOWERS COME FORWARD: Driver Delivered Hundreds of Thousands of Completed Ballots Across Three State Lines

Attorney Gregory Tuefel asked the Supreme Court to halt the certification of Pennsylvania’s election results and to hear their challenge to the state’s mail-in voting system.

A copy of the 40-page filing was given to The Gateway Pundit and reviewed by this reporter.

The GOP attorney argued that “Article VII of the Pennsylvania Constitution make clear that there are two, and only two, constitutionally-permissible methods of voting: 1) offering your ballot in propria persona at the polling place on election day; and 2) exceptions to the first method limited to those persons qualifying under the absentee voting provision, Article VII, § 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court circumvented the state legislature, made laws out of thin air and ruled mail-in/ballots with no dates or handwritten names/addresses on the outer envelopes can be counted.

Tuefel argued that the US Supreme Court holds jurisdiction over Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruling which he labeled an “offensive sword against Petitioners.”

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Applicants’ request for an emergency writ of injunction (or alternatively a stay of lower proceedings), grant certiorari on the questions presented herein, treat the Application papers as a merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable,” Attorney Tuefel concluded.

Read More