Wrong.
Likely to succeed on the merits is indeed a preliminary determination that you are likely to succeed. That’s one of the requirements for a court to issue an injunction, and has nothing to do with dismissing the case or not.
If you aren’t likely to succeed the court won’t take the extraordinary step of issuing orders before the case is completed.
The problem is even if we win before this judge, this will eventually go to the PA Supreme Court, dominated by liberals who created many of the improper procedures.
So then the question will be to what degree the US Supreme Court will review the decision of the PA Supreme Court on a question of interpreting the PA Constitution.
Indeed that’s the real question. We can safely assume that the hacks on PASC will rule that Act 77 is constitutional. Would the SCOTUS take up an appeal when the PASC ruling would be so clearly corrupt?
Which likely will fail... then to the US Supreme court?
Third, state courts have the final word on state constitutional interpretation. In other words, if you prevail on a state constitutional issue, the other side has no recourse to the U.S. Supreme Court, unless of course the state constitution itself violates the national Constitution.
Source: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/novemberdecember-2016/state-constitutions-freedoms-frontier
Unsure if this is accurate but if so, how would one argue the PA constitution, as it is today, violates the national Constitution?
Didn’t judge Alito weigh in on the “3 days after the election” counting of ballots, and say that they couldn’t do that?
And wouldn’t he say the same thing here, that the mail-ins violated the state law?