“
3requirements must be strictly followed. Specifically, pursuant to Article XI, Section1, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority vote of themembers of both the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate in twoconsecutive legislative sessions, then the proposed amendment must be publishedfor three months ahead of the next general election in two newspapers in eachcounty, and finally it must be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot questionin the next general election and approved by a majority of those voting on theamendment. “
...
Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provisionis at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77.
So in this case, they didn’t win on fraud. They won because the PA constitution describes the conditions in which mail in voting is allowed. They can’t modify that by legislation unless they modify their constitution, which they didn’t do.
So it sounds like PA might be a win. At least it’s going to the legislature and a key committee has already heard the voter fraud claims.
I’m not sure if this win can be emulated in other states, because it depend on how those states constitution is written and whether their constitutions described limits on mail-in voting.