…and funnier yet, in that libs believe this day after day, after day poop show is providing the same. 
Just curious, can this still potentially be heard by SCOTUS ?
P.S. This latest ruling was widely expected with the vast majority of PA Supreme Court justices being elected onto the bench there running as Democrats.
1 Like
No the question before the Supreme Court of PA had to do with the PA Constitution. The SCOTUS does not review state constitution cases unless their is a challenge that the state constitution is in conflict with the Federal constitution.
Since PA determines it’s own rules for mail-in ballot eligibility there is no federal question.
WW
2 Likes
Thanks for that.
A bit confusing to us mere layman.
Maybe you can also clarify the extension of post marked PA ballots received after Election Day 2020 and if tried again in future elections how SCOTUS could choose to get involved or not.
They can’t. The PA Supreme Coirt settled the matter for their state
I don’t think they would step into this conflict.
But there is a related case. The court will hear Moore v. Harper which contests whether state legislatures can be bound by state judiciary/constitutions on matters of election law.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1271.html
If they rule fully for the petitioner here it wouldn’t matter if The PA constitution said outright that mail in ballots are prohibited because the argument in this case is that the US constitution gives election control to legislatures exclusively. Unbound by state constitution or state judicial review.
As a side not I always found it interesting the disconnect by a few on these boards arguing FOR legislature restrictions in some cases (PA act 77) and AGAINST it in others (PA judicial modifications, decertification, etc…)
P.P.S - ruling on a law passed by a Republican legislature
Give it a few years.
Then, like with Bush, like with Romney, etc “Trump? I never supported that guy. He’s not a real conservative “.
I don’t think the case you mentioned is a related case at all.
This case was a claim Act 77 itself was passed unconstitutionally because it required a constitutional amendment.
The ruling was it didn’t.
This won’t be a case of legislative limitation because only absentee/incapacitated mail in is REQUIRED by the Constitution. No excuse mail in voting is not required, so the Legislature, if it so chose, could simply repeal no excuse mail in voting.
It was widely expected because a plain reading of the PA Constitution shows it was the proper ruling to be made.
But go ahead…make an argument that no excuse mail in balloting required a constitutional amendment.
Yep was going to post this.
Mail in ballots are due by 8 pm Election Day…no exceptions.
The claim was Act 77 violated the PA constitution. The ruling said it didn’t… and even zeroed in on the weight of legislature control.
They are related in that respect. If Moore v. Harper prevails, this sentiment will not only be confirmed, it will be enhanced to the point that the PA constitution and the PA Supreme Court CAN NOT bind the legislature on election matters. For example, if the PA constitution were amended to say “no mail ballots”, the legislature can still implement mail in ballots because The elections clause gives them exclusive control of elections (along with US constitution and legislature).
This also relates to the other PA claims that the judiciary illegally modified election procedures (extensions, etc…) … the court rested on provisions in the PA constitution requiring modifications to account for Covid. Under Moore v. Harper this would be reversed/prohibited.
I don’t see SCOTUS ruling to fully vest power in legislatures, but this is the connection to Act 77.
Can anyone explain why it takes more than 48 hours to only count 88% of the AZ primary ballots AFTER the ■■■■■■■■ of 2020?
Mail in ballots are ■■■■ and are ruining the US election system.
How are the ruining the election system?
It takes time to hand count ballots
That makes absolutely no sense. Explain exactly how they are ruining the election system? Does a mail-in ballot take longer to count than an in-person ballot?
What possible fraud? Neither the article or candidate identify anything other than they didn’t like the early results
So the article’s evidnece of “fraud” is the mail in ballots massively favored Robson and the in person voting massively favored Lake, and this shouldn’t happen in an all GOP race.
My response would be- why not? This makes the assumption that the GOP is all of a piece.
Suspicion of mail-in ballots and a desire to vote in person runs strongest in Trump Republicans- not so strongly in other Republicans. So there is noting at all suspcious about divergence even in a GOP primary.
It happened in the election in which I ran back in 2021. In the GOP primary, I only got 25% of the in person votes, but I got 60% of the mail in votes.
School board candidate are cross-filed, but I am focusing on just the GOP primary (and we were both registered Republicans as well).
Not as stark difference as this primary, but a difference nonetheless.
Edited to add- in a neighboring region, a super liberal Democrat (she flew the BLM flag in her yard, so everyone knew she was a super Liberal as well) only got 18% of the in person Republican vote, but 56% of the mail in Republican vote.
I suppose this must be a huge sign of fraud because no way would Republicans vote for a BLM flag flying Lib, right?
Arizona attorney general Mark Brnovich responded to the state senate’s request for a criminal investigation into the alleged dead voter fraud on Monday, telling senate president Karen Fann in a letter that just one dead voter was found in his office’s investigation, which included hundreds of hours of research by the AG’s Election Integrity Unit.
Brnovich wrote that his office supported the Senate’s ballot review but that “allegations of widespread deceased voters from the Senate audit and other complaints received by the EIU are insufficient and not corroborated.”
National Review reached out to sixteen legislators who signed a joint resolution in December 2020 asking Congress to either accept the 11 “alternate” electoral votes for former president Donald Trump or “to have all electoral votes nullified completely until a full forensic audit can be conducted.” Only one — state Representative John Fillmore — responded to a request for comment.
