□ 0040
Perhaps that is because attorneys could lose their licenses when they make unsubstantiated claims in court. That is where the rubber really meets the road.
So if these lawsuits didn’t claim election fraud, what did they claim?
Most of the legal challenges to the Presidential election in Pennsylvania question relatively small numbers of ballots that were allegedly tainted by technical violations. Even assuming that all of these ballots had been cast for Joe Biden, throwing them out wouldn’t have changed the result of the election.
Now, one exception is the lawsuit filed by one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, Kelly v. Commonwealth, which would have thrown out all the mail-in votes cast in the 2020 general election on the grounds that Act 77, the State law allowing those votes, was unconstitutional. That suit would have disenfranchised 2½ million Pennsylvanians. Let’s let that sink in, 2½ million Pennsylvanians would have had their votes nullified.
Now, I want to provide my colleagues with some background about the State law at the heart of this challenge. In 2019, the Republican-controlled State legislature approved Act 77, a bipartisan bill to reform the State’s election laws, which instituted no-excuse mail balloting. Act 77 was supported almost unanimously by Republicans in the State House and State Senate. In fact, it was unanimous in the State Senate and all but two Republicans in the State House.
Moreover, once this Act was passed, Act 77 had a 120-day period where challenges could be filed against the Act if people thought it was unconstitutional. Well, 4 months went by, nobody files a challenge. On June 3, Pennsylvania had their primary under this new system. Nobody challenged the primary election. It was only challenged in November, when Republicans didn’t get the result they wanted at the top of the ticket. Not surprisingly, this case was dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
Another exception is Texas v. Pennsylvania. They asked the court to reject the results of the Pennsylvania Presidential contest in Pennsylvania and several other States, disenfranchising tens of millions of the voters. Seven Republican members of the Pennsylvania U.S. House delegation signed the U.S. House Republican brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania.
While I feel compelled to point out to my colleagues that the same voters who sent them to the 117th Congress cast their votes for the President by marking the very same ballots, which were read by the very same ballot scanners and monitored by the very same election workers. Yet our colleagues who signed the brief only want to invalidate the Presidential votes. This is illogical and inconsistent, colleagues, and I am pleased to note that the Supreme Court rejected it as well.
The fact is, the election has received unprecedented scrutiny in the courts. I believe it is irresponsible and undemocratic to argue today that the U.S. Congress ought to relitigate the 2020 Presidential election and second-guess the will of the voters in multiple States, the decisions of numerous State and Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and the counts and recounts conducted by State election officials.
There were 20 lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania challenging aspects of the Presidential election. In 19 of them you got laughed out of court. The one case you won affected roughly 100 votes. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won by over 80,000.
Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
The Speaker. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening with a heavy heart. The violence that occurred today at the U.S. Capitol was senseless, destructive, and counter to our American values.
This past Sunday, each Member of this body took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. And while the path of least resistance, particularly following today’s events, would be to remain silent, my oath to uphold the Constitution does not permit me to maintain silence.
While systemic voter fraud was not something proven, we witnessed a systemic failure in the application of Pennsylvania’s voting law when it comes to the 2020 general election.
In late 2019, the Commonwealth revisited and modernized its election law with the bipartisan Act 77. Granted, in late 2019, the Commonwealth’s legislature did not have the foresight to anticipate how COVID–19 would present challenges to voting. Despite that, it is not up to the Governor, the secretary of the Commonwealth, nor the State supreme court to unilaterally create law.
The election abuses to Pennsylvania Act 77 taken by the Pennsylvania executive branch and upheld by the Pennsylvania judicial branch were clearly unconstitutional and had an obvious, if not major, impact on the 2020 election, particularly when it comes to the citizens’ faith in the electoral process.
Irregularities in Pennsylvania included: Uneven application of the law; ballot curing; ignoring signature validation requirements; using unsecured drop boxes; accepting ballots beyond the deadlines; and interfering with certified poll watcher access, among others.
These actions were taken by the Commonwealth’s Governor and secretary of state where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court circumvented the authority of the State legislature. Furthermore, the chief law officer of the Commonwealth sat idly while this process unfolded.
Now, I joined many of my colleagues in Pennsylvania requesting the legislators in Harrisburg conduct an investigation and audit to ensure such negligence will be prevented in future elections.
I have serious concerns about how these irregularities in the application of the Commonwealth’s election laws will play in future elections. Only with equal application of law will the voters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have certainty in their election processes.
Now, I remain committed to ensuring the voters receive an electoral system they deserve and where equal application of law is guaranteed. If our election integrity is compromised, we have failed the very voters who have sent us here to defend the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. Harris. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The oath I took is very simple. Madam Speaker, you administered it. It is to support and defend the Constitution.
Now, as you walk back to the office buildings, you will walk by that wall that has when the various States accepted that Constitution. Remember, when a State accepts the Constitution, it agrees to accept every part of the Constitution. It doesn’t get to pick and choose.
Pennsylvania was there when it was written. They were so enthusiastic about the Constitution, they approved it in 1787.
My State, Maryland, is a little further down the wall, 1788. They were there when it was written.
The clause that gave the legislature the power over the elections was there when they accepted it. It has been there since. How dare the judicial branch or the executive branch of that State usurp the legislative authority. That is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Now, we heard there is no evidence.
Evidence?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unilaterally extended the deadline to receive absentee and mail-in ballots.
Does anybody contest that over here? Does it say the legislature did that?
No, it doesn’t. It says the court did it.
That is a violation. That is what the Texas lawsuit was all about. We disadvantage other States when States like Pennsylvania, the executive branch and judicial branch, cheat on the Constitution; and that is what they did here.
But there is more evidence. But wait, there is more. The Democrat secretary of the Commonwealth eroded integrity by dismissing signature authentication on a ballot.
Does anyone here believe the Pennsylvania legislature would have agreed
