Sen. Rand Paul said that former President Donald Trump’s claims of election fraud were never fully heard by the courts.
“The one thing I think is untrue is that the courts fully heard this,” Paul said at an event hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation. “Courts have been hesitant to get involved in elections.”
But Paul said the 2020 election demonstrated that judges should weigh in on the issue, especially when it comes to state officials, such as a secretary of state, unilaterally making changes to state election procedures without input from state legislatures.
As the COVID-19 pandemic raged across the country, many state officials made changes to election laws, citing the safety of voters. Widespread use of mail-in balloting was encouraged in many areas of the country, while deadlines for mail-in ballots were extended, oftentimes without input from state lawmakers.
Paul believes that, absent the courts taking on the cases, state legislatures should pass laws making it clear that state officials cannot make unilateral changes to election law without involving lawmakers.
“It should be one person, one vote at a time,” Paul said.
Trump’s legal team and many allies across the country filed dozens of lawsuits that disputed 2020’s election results, with most being thrown out before ever being heard for lack of standing.
The Supreme Court, in February, also refused to hear a Republican challenge to changes in Pennsylvania’s election law, drawing a forceful dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.
“One wonders what the Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent,” Thomas wrote.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” Thomas continued. “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.”
