Now, how did unconstitutional mail-in ballots affect the 2020 election in Pennsylvania?

JWK

2 Likes

it’s all a “conspiracy”

1 Like

image

I see it didn’t take long for an absurdity to be posted.

JWK

1 Like

From the above article:

The three Republican judges agreed with Republican challengers — including 11 Republican lawmakers who actually voted for the law — and ruled that no-excuse mail-in voting is prohibited under the state constitution, until the constitution is changed to allow it.

And what does Pennsylvania’s Constitution actually say?

Clause 1 of Article VII of PA’s Constitution declares:

“Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.”

And, Section 14 of Article VII was enacted which is titled:

§ 14. Absentee voting.

(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence,

because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election,

are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday

or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.

As anyone can see, Section 14 provides two, and only two ways by which a qualified elector may cast his or her vote in an election:

(1) by submitting his or her vote in propria persona at the polling place on election day; and

(2) by submitting an absentee ballot, but only if the qualified voter satisfies one of the conditions under which absentee voting is authorized as outlined above in “Absentee voting”.

The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, which legislatively attempts to fundamentally change and expand allowable conditions for Pennsylvania’s “Absentee Voting” and permitting no-excuse mail-in voting without amending Pennsylvania’s Constitution, is a clear Violation of PA’s Constitution ___ Clause 1 of Article VII, § 14. Absentee voting.

The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 was a legislative attempt to fundamentally change Pennsylvania’s voting system, permitting no-excuse mail-in voting, without amending Pennsylvania’s Constitution!

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

JWK

2 Likes

This part is so lolzzzzz:

“The three Republican judges agreed with Republican challengersincluding 11 Republican lawmakers who actually voted for the law — and ruled that no-excuse mail-in voting is prohibited under the state constitution, until the constitution is changed to allow it.”

Also, good luck at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Thoughts and prayers.

1 Like

Are you suggesting a majority on Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court would pretend PA’s Constitution does not say what is stated in crystal clear language?

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

3 Likes

Doesn’t matter what the Commonwealth Court did. The PA Supreme Court already ruled on this. This is just an inter-judicial feud that will squashed again by the Supreme Court.

PA Supreme Court already ruled on this. The Commonwealth court is just being obstinate.

This is better.

In 2019, the Republican-controlled Legislature authorized no-excuse mail-in voting for all voters, expanding upon a provision in the state constitution that required the state to provide the option for people to vote if they are unable to vote in person for specific reasons.

Every Republican lawmaker, except one, voted for the bill

1 Like

Chef’s Kiss

3 Likes

Hard to say what effects it had. But it’s not reasonable to invalidate votes from legitimate voters expressing their legitimate intent following state law in good faith.

It also looks like the legislature was operating in good faith here regardless the ultimate ruling.

Don’t know how much you have looked into other cases, but courts have invalidated election laws many time. A good comparison is that the courts struck down a Florida election law (that placed the governors party at the top of the ballot always) that was in effect in 2016 (and many elections before hand). The law was struck down but there is no attempt to revise the results of elections that operated under that law.

In the case you mention, the PA Court rule the lawsuit was filed too late. They never ruled on the constitutionality of the legislature arbitrarily changing the limits on mail-in voting. That is what will finally be determined.

JWK

2 Likes

Brought that part up in another thread. Apparently i didn’t imagine it.

You should read it. Especially the part @Zander quoted :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

Stop making stuff up. The PA S.C. did not rule on the constitutionality of the mail in voting. In fact we find the following in the RULING in KELLY v. COMMONWEALTH

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR, concurring and dissenting.

I agree with the majority that injunctive relief restraining certification of the votes of Pennsylvanians cast in the 2020 general election should not have been granted and is unavailable in the present circumstances. As the majority relates, there has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime created by Act 77 to warrant judicial consideration of the extreme and untenable remedies proposed by Appellees.1

Accordingly, I join the per curiam Order to the extent that it vacates the preliminary injunction implemented by the Commonwealth Court.2

That said, there is a component of Appellees’ original complaint, filed in the Commonwealth Court, which seeks declaratory relief and is unresolved by the above remedial assessment. Additionally, I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme.3

One of Appellants’ main responses is that the citizenry, and perhaps future generations, are forever bound by the Legislature’s decision to insert, into Act 77 itself, a 180-day time restriction curtailing challenges to the substantive import of the enactment. See Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, § 13(3). However, I find this assessment to be substantially problematic.4 Further, as Appellees observe, ongoing amendments to an unconstitutional enactment so insulated from judicial review may have a compounding effect by exacerbating the disparity between what the Constitution requires and the law as it is being enforced. Thus, Appellees raise a colorable challenge to the viability of this sort of limitation, which can result in effectively amending the Constitution via means other those which the charter itself sanctions. See PA. CONST., art. XI (Amendments).

To the degree that Appellees wish to pursue this challenge in the ordinary course, upon the realization that their proposed injunctive remedies will be considered no further, I would allow them to do so in the Commonwealth Court upon a remand. In this regard, relative to the declaratory component of the request for relief, I also would not invoke the doctrine of laches, since the present challenge arises in the first election cycle in which no-excuse mail-in voting has been utilized. Moreover, "laches and prejudice can never***[240 A.3d 1263]***be permitted to amend the Constitution." Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38, 47, 550 A.2d 184, 188 (1988).

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

So, once again I ask, Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

JWK

1 Like

Like we already knew, common sense told us that, a court only needs to rule on things like that to convince the ignorant.

First, dissenting opinion, which means his analysis did not prevail.

Second, Justice Saylor is no longer on the Court

Third, the window to challenge constitutionality under the Statute expired almost two years ago.

This is going to be reversed.

Dred Scott. A bad ruling, or law can be changed years later.

1 Like

In regard to your notion “the window to challenge constitutionality under the Statute expired almost two years ago.” as per CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR, concurring and dissenting opinion in KELLY v. COMMONWEALTH points out:

“laches and prejudice can never be permitted to amend the Constitution.” Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38, 47, 550 A.2d 184, 188 (1988).

And in Sprague v. Casey we find:

[A]ll acts of the legislature and of any governmental agency are subordinate to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the land; and therefore no matter how desirable the act may appear or how worthy the objective, *54 it cannot be sustained if it is interdicted by the Constitution.

.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

2 Likes

image

9 Likes