Nov. 9 (UPI) — Attorneys basic from 10 states filed an amicus temporary Monday urging the U.S. Supreme Courtroom to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Courtroom’s resolution to increase the state’s deadline for receiving mail-in ballots.

The group of attorneys basic from 10 Republican-led states supported the arguments of President Donald Trump’s marketing campaign, the Pennsylvania Republican Celebration and a pair of state legislative leaders that the Pennsylvania Supreme Courtroom “overstepped its constitutional accountability” by extending the deadline for the state to simply accept mail-in ballots to Nov. 6.

“Free and truthful elections are a cornerstone of our republic and make the USA the envy of countries throughout the globe. To maintain these elections free and truthful, we should make sure that each authorized vote is counted and each unlawful vote shouldn’t be,” Missouri Lawyer Basic Eric Schmitt, who led the temporary, mentioned in a press launch.

Attorneys basic from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas additionally joined the temporary.

The temporary states that the Pennsylvania legislature “encroached on the authority of the legislature” by extending the deadline and alleges that mail-in ballots enhance the chance for fraud, citing distinguished examples from previous elections.

Additionally Monday, Ohio Lawyer Basic Dave Yost, a Republican, filed a separate amicus temporary within the case stating that “state legislatures, not state courts, set the foundations for selecting presidential electors” however didn’t problem the observe of counting mail-in ballots after Election Day or counsel that absentee ballots current a chance for fraud.

“This constitutional query will come up once more in future elections. It’s in the most effective curiosity of all Ohioans — all of America — to realize a definitive reply, no matter politics,” mentioned Yost.

Final month, the Supreme Courtroom declined a request to resolve earlier than Election Day whether or not to permit the extension, as Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas mentioned the courtroom’s dealing with of the case “needlessly created situations that would result in critical post-election issues” however concluded there was not sufficient time to situation a choice earlier than the election.