Indiana Attorney General Joins Republican Case Against Pennsylvania Supreme Court

November 11, 2020 Updated: November 11, 2020

Republican Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court and joined other Republicans in arguing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overstepped its authority by allowing voters three additional days to cast ballots.

Hill joined five other Republican attorneys general from other states in the lawsuit.

“When we see courts in other states cross the line and take over that process and the potential impact that may have on the wishes of Indiana voters, we believe it is appropriate to take action,” Hill said, according to WFYI.

The brief argued that state legislatures, under the U.S. Constitution, have to choose the point when states can stop receiving absentee ballots and start counting votes. State courts like the Pennsylvania Supreme Court don’t have the jurisdiction to do that, they said.

Pennsylvania voters had 50 days to return their absentee ballots to ensure they were received by Election Day. The brief argues failure to meet the deadline was not the fault of state election law. The brief also pointed out other courts that have upheld Election Day receipt deadlines, both before and during the pandemic.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has correctly stated previously that courts should not attempt to usurp the authority of state legislatures in matters related to election laws,” Hill also said. “With this brief, we are simply asking the Supreme Court to continue to uphold that principle.”

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, a Republican, said the state Supreme Court “acted in a legislative capacity when it changed the election rules.”

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted in a legislative capacity when it changed the election rules,” he said. “Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution is clear—it is the duty of the legislative branch of each state that determines election rules. State election deadlines give the public the ability to quickly know the results of the election and promote confidence in those results. Changing the rules of the election right before voting starts robs the state of being able to set its own election laws and causes confusion among voters. We encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to review this case without delay.”