The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday formally rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 presidential election, including one filed by U.S. Rep Mike Kelly, R-16th.

Kelly's lawsuit, which included other Republicans as plaintiffs, claims the Pennsylvania mail-in voting law under Act 77 is unconstitutional.

The state's Legislature passed the landmark expansion, Act 77, in 2019 with near-unanimous GOP support. It allowed no-excuse mail voting in the commonwealth for the first time in the 2020 primary and general elections.

“It is astounding that our nation's highest court was unwilling to hear arguments in a case that called on the court to require states to follow their own constitutions in the conduct of federal elections,” Kelly said in a statement. “Act 77 expressly violates the Pennsylvania Constitution.”Two of the other election-related lawsuits the court declined to hear also had ties to Butler County.Those suits involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states that President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Butler attorney Thomas King III worked on all three state-related cases.The second case that was rejected is Republican Party of Pennsylvania vs. Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid. The case questions the legality of the three-day extensions afforded to gathering votes submitted by mail.The third case is Donald J. Trump for President v. Degraffenreid, who replaced state Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, who resigned earlier this month.The third case attempts to prevent the certification of Pennsylvania's election results.King said he was disappointed and surprised that all three cases he worked on were rejected. But he noted that since these are election-related issues, the problem, as he sees it, will be exposed every election cycle.“It's a continuing constitutional violation,” King said. “Every time there's an election, the same question can be brought up again.”On Monday, three of the nine justices said the court should have taken up the issue.“A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito. “But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.” Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch also would have taken up the issue.Thomas wrote that the court was inviting “further confusion and erosion of voter confidence” by not taking up the issue.<i>The Associated Press contributed to this report.</i>

Representative Mike Kelly