See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions
January 22, 2021
Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”
The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT which indicates The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77. is un-constitutional.
CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR
Filed: November 28, 2020
"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 be permitted to amend the Constitution.” Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38, 47, 550 A.2d 184, 188 (1988).”
“Consistent with my position throughout this election cycle, I believe that, to the extent possible, we should apply more ordinary and orderly methods of judicial consideration, since far too much nuance is lost by treating every election matter as exigent and worthy of this Court’s immediate resolution. In this respect, I would honor the Commonwealth Court’s traditional role as the court of original and original appellate jurisdiction for most election matters. Finally, I am decidedly against yet another award of extraordinary jurisdiction at the Secretary’s behest.”
Justice Mundy joins this Concurring and Dissenting Statement."
Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.