Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court arguing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overstepped its authority.
The case brought forth by the Pennsylvania Republican Party against the state’s attorney general alleges the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to allow voters three additional days to prove legally cast ballots violates the state legislature’s ability to oversee elections.
States are responsible for running their own elections, but this case largely depends on the court’s interpretation of Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. That’s if the Supreme Court even hears the case, which some legal experts say is unlikely.
Hill joins attorneys general from five other states—all are Republicans. Indiana’s Attorney General-elect Todd Rokita, also a Republican, says he supports Hill’s filing in the case.
Hill asserts the case has an impact on Indiana.
“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," he said.
“Federal elections impact every Indiana citizen, especially Presidential elections,” he wrote in a statement. “As a former chief elections officer, having served as Indiana’s Secretary of State, I understand how important it is to have fair and transparent elections.”
There are no credible allegations that this November’s election was unfair or lacked transparency.
Dr. Nicholas Almendares is an Associate Professor Law at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law. He admits the case is the strongest allegation he’s seen to date that challenges November’s election results, but that comes with a caveat.
“But it’s also quite weak. This is not what I would call a strong case objectively,” he said. “It sort of tells you how weak these challenges have been from a legal perspective overall in my estimation.”
Almendares said plaintiffs are making a significant ask.
“This involves the Supreme Court of The United States to an outside entity coming down and telling the state how to run its own elections,” he said. “That’s a big deal and highly unusual. That’s a big move for the US Supreme Court to make.”
The case filed does not directly address unproven claims of voter fraud, but that didn’t keep Hill from mentioning them.
Hill says due to the case and allegations of voter fraud he does not accept Joe Biden as the President-elect. The attorney general could not provide specific examples of voter fraud, and to date there are none--only unproven allegations.
Hill left open the possibility of Indiana entering briefs for other cases.
This article has been updated.