Formal transition to Biden begins

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Yes.

No. The issue is that PA Act 77 authorizing mail in voting en mass, required a constitutional amendment. The constitutional amendment never occurred in spite of the fact that the process was initiated and abandoned. The PA Supreme Court let that stand, however the office in view here is the President of the United States, making it a federal issue. Therefore, the US Supreme Court may have something to say about the fact that the Pennsylvania election violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. All of the mail in ballots were unconstitutional. So applying the big laws to the little ones, the Pennsylvania Constitution [the supreme law of Pennsylvania] trumps PA Act 77.
PA thinks they can change voting rules for Federal Office?
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
Yes.

No. The issue is that PA Act 77 authorizing mail in voting en mass, required a constitutional amendment. The constitutional amendment never occurred in spite of the fact that the process was initiated and abandoned. The PA Supreme Court let that stand, however the office in view here is the President of the United States, making it a federal issue. Therefore, the US Supreme Court may have something to say about the fact that the Pennsylvania election violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. All of the mail in ballots were unconstitutional. So applying the big laws to the little ones, the Pennsylvania Constitution [the supreme law of Pennsylvania] trumps PA Act 77.
(1) All that has to be resolved before the election, on the precedents I stated earlier.

(2) It's disputed that PA Act 77 needed a constitutional amendment. Can you quote the part of the PA constitution that requires the constitutional amendment for PA Act 77?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Please cite the action which violated their constitution as well as the section of the constitution it violated.
More importantly perhaps, why should an appropriate remedy be the complete disenfranchisement of the entire state, whose voters acted in good faith in accordance with the laws of the time?
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
They can but this law violated their constitution.
Please consider and respond to the reasoning in the defendant's response to Mike Kelley's suit in PA, and to which the SCOTUS has just declined to hear, perhaps on the same bases as the respondents;.

From https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...sition-to-emergency-application-12-8-2020.pdf

The legislative history of Act 77 confirms that the General Assembly understood itself to be creating a form of voting distinct from absentee ballots.

Maintaining secrecy is the Pennsylvania Constitution’s only affirmative limitation on the General Assembly’s prerogative to determine “such other methods” of voting. Act 77 complies with this limitation by requiring mail-in voters to use a secrecy envelope.

Article VII, § 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is not to the contrary. Petitioners contend that by requiring the General Assembly to allow certain voters to cast absentee ballots, Article VII, § 14 somehow forbids the General Assembly from allowing others to vote by mail. But the inclusion of a particular legislative duty in the Pennsylvania Constitution does not prevent the General Assembly from crafting other legislation on that topic.7

Here is what the PA Constitution says about absentee ballots:

(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.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Please consider and respond to the reasoning in the defendant's response to Mike Kelley's suit in PA, and to which the SCOTUS has just declined to hear, perhaps on the same bases as the respondents;.

From https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...sition-to-emergency-application-12-8-2020.pdf
The preliminary statement is unintentionally hilarious. "They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash." Hello, the fact the election was stolen already did that! This argument literally says it's better to disenfranchise the law abiding voters, than the people who stole the election, on the ground that lawless will visit more hell on the country. Do they teach justice anywhere in law school? If not they may want to consider that.
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
The preliminary statement is unintentionally hilarious. "They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash." Hello, the fact the election was stolen already did that! This argument literally says it's better to disenfranchise the law abiding voters, than the people who stole the election, on the ground that lawless will visit more hell on the country. Do they teach justice anywhere in law school? If not they may want to consider that.
That statement is not the operative part of the one part of their argument that I asked you to address, the one concerning the PA Constitution.
 
Top