Justice Clarence Thomas decimated his colleagues’ refusal to address the election rules cases.

On Feb. 22, the Supreme Court dismissed the cases challenging late changes made to Pennsylvania election law by parties other than the legislature.  The High Court declined to give them a hearing, finally weighing in (or rather refusing to) on a request made before November’s elections.  No justice wrote to explain why the Court was correct in not taking the cases. Justice Clarence Thomas, however, wrote a powerful thesis on precisely why it was vitally important that the Court take them. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also agreed the cases should be heard.

If heard, the cases would have decided who was legally entitled to make late changes to election rules.

Not So Moot …

Justice Clarence Thomas

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch did not offer direct opinions on which party should win or lose on election rule changes made by state actors other than legislators.  But they did agree that the Supreme Court should take the cases to decide the question. Alito wrote a dissent, signed by Gorsuch, that said “there is no reason for refusing to decide the important question that these cases pose.” Alito went on to explain why, even though the election that generated the dispute was concluded, the cases should still be heard. While Alito wrote in dissent, his was a dispassionate note of caution compared to Thomas’ methodical takedown of his colleagues’ decision to punt.

Thomas acknowledged that his brother and sister justices’ refusal to hear these election cases “is inexplicable.” He insisted that the changes made by state courts and election officials directly implicated the federal Constitution, which gives only state legislatures authority to determine the “Manner” of elections for federal office.

Read full article at: LibertyNation.