Click here to read the full article

As the post-elec­tion legal bat­tle forges on, 10 Repub­li­can Attor­neys Gen­er­al from sev­er­al states are urg­ing the Supreme Court to get involved in the state of Pennsylvania.

Led by Mis­souri Attor­ney Gen­er­al Eric Schmitt, Attor­neys Gen­er­al from Alaba­ma, Arkansas, Flori­da, Ken­tucky, Louisiana, Mis­sis­sip­pi, South Car­oli­na, South Dako­ta and Texas filed an ami­cus brief with the Supreme Court con­cern­ing the mail-in bal­lot law­suit filed in Pennsylvania.

Ohio Attor­ney Gen­er­al Dave Yost filed a sim­i­lar brief, and Okla­homa Attor­ney Gen­er­al Mike Hunter is expect­ed to file one as well.

What exact­ly is an ami­cus brief?

Essen­tial­ly, it’s a “friend of the court” peti­tion by a per­son or group with strong inter­est or view on the sub­ject mat­ter, but not a par­ty to the matter.

“Free and fair elec­tions are the cor­ner­stone of our Repub­lic and it’s one of the rea­sons why the Unit­ed States is the envy of the world,” Mis­souri AG Eric Schmitt said in a press con­fer­ence on Mon­day. “We have to ensure that every legal vote cast is count­ed and that every ille­gal vote cast is not counted.”

The Penn­syl­va­nia law­suit at issue, Repub­li­can Par­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia v. Boock­var, chal­lenges the Penn­syl­va­nia Supreme Court’s deci­sion to allow mail-in bal­lots that arrived after Elec­tion Day to be count­ed, despite state laws order­ing oth­er­wise, accord­ing to The Federalist.

Asso­ciate Jus­tice Samuel Ali­to Jr. grant­ed the Repub­li­can Par­ty of Pennsylvania’s request, tem­porar­i­ly order­ing all coun­ties to sep­a­rate mail-in bal­lots that arrived after 8 p.m. on Elec­tion Day from the rest; how­ev­er, the law­suit is still pend­ing peti­tion from the high­est court.

“The actions tak­en by the Penn­syl­va­nia Supreme Court are one of the most breath­tak­ing abus­es of judi­cial author­i­ty that I’ve seen in my four-plus years as attor­ney gen­er­al,” Okla­homa AG Mike Hunter said.

In the brief, the Repub­li­can AGs state they believe the Penn­syl­va­nia Supreme Court “over­stepped its Con­sti­tu­tion­al respon­si­bil­i­ty, encroached on the author­i­ty of the Penn­syl­va­nia leg­is­la­ture, and vio­lat­ed the plain lan­guage of the Elec­tion Clauses.”