Pennsylvania Trial Judge Halts Certification

Legal Insurrection ^ | 11/27/2020 | Mazz44

[mazz44]

Trial judge halts certification. Evidentiary hearing to follow.

https://www.legalinsurrection.com/2020/11/pennsylvania-state-judge-halts-certification-finds-likelihood-mail-in-balloting-procedures-violate-pa-constitution/

[mazz44]

In history there are “Gappers.” Many are shining now!

[Truthoverpower]

Yep this is WAR. THIS week
Is FILING WEEK

[conservative98]

HUGE decision issued by Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCulloughhttps://t.co/q0vDuNXGaa— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 28, 2020

[Prole]

Yes!! Destroy them all, as Saint Michael the Archangel will destroy Satan!!

[usnavy_cop_retired]

This footnote at the end of the order is the money quote for me. It basically sets out the judge’s thinking that the size of the “illegal” votes can not force the court to accept the “illegal” votes and ignore the constitution.

5 The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed various circumstances concerning disenfranchisement of votes. For instance, it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Reynolds, which established the “one person, one vote” doctrine, is the seminal case on voter dilution. Under this concept, a mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in Pa. Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Dr. Franklin]

That footnote follows the below:

Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors. The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.5

This is the first honest opinion that I've read from a judge in PA. N.B. that the start date for the safe Harbor for certifying the election is December 8th. Claims that it must start earlier are pure propaganda.

[bitt]

From August 12, 2019
How Hackers Can Target Voting Machines | NBC News Now

Discusses the Hackers conference in Las Vegas.

[Jane Long]

Hallelujah!!

[nwrep]

Ping. Comments?

[trebb]

A growing number of judges have been paying attention - and they know SCOTUS is also paying attention.

[usnavy_cop_retired]

Agree with your assessment. The remedies are fairly easy: Disqualify all mail in votes not requested through the absentee ballot request system, (since it is impossible to determine who they voted for or to identify the specific votes, an amount which represents the percentage split of in-person votes should be removed for each candidate). Assume that the in-person votes split 55-45% for PDJT then the illegal votes will be removed from the total count accordingly. The legal in-person votes and absentee votes will not be affected by removing the illegal votes by the formula I suggest and it may be possible to isolate the absentee votes to determine the exact percentage they represented for each candidate.

[Dr. Franklin]

A growing number of judges have been paying attention - and they know SCOTUS is also paying attention.

SCOTUS is paying attention, but trying hard to stay out of the dispute as much as it can. It does't want to appear political, especially because President Trump wanted Justice Barrett confirmed to address election disputes. If she now decides an election case in Trump's favor, the court appears political.

Yet, de Tocqueville wrote long ago, There is hardly any political question in the United States that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question. Things are percolating through the court system, and SCOTUS could jump in any time it wants. The Bush v. Gore equal protection of law precedent is plainly there. The question is does it want to decide the election, or does it defer to the state legislatures to police their delegation of power? Ultimately, how states appoint their Presidential Electors is a matter for the state legislators to decide. Voting for a slate of electors by the citizens is a privilege granted by the legislature, not a constitutional right, per se.

[Dr. Franklin]

The remedies are fairly easy

They are easy for us, but drastic for the judges. Remember that in Bush v. Gore in 2000, SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that Florida violated the equal protection clause in how it conducted the recount, but split sharply 5-4 on the remedy of stopping the recount. I don't know if they can distinguish the novel mail in ballots from the absentee ballots.

By comingling all of the ballots they made a mess of things. To use a crude analogy, if someone urinates in to a vat of wine, do you bottle up the wine like nothing happened because so much money and effort went in to making the wine? It's what they did. Once the courts get past the standing arguments and other excuses, and actually address the fraud, the issue then becomes the remedy. Tossing out hundreds of thousands of illegal or fraudulent ballots leads to the cannard that the courts are disenfranchising voters. In fact those ballots are cancelling out legal votes. It's the ultimate cancel culture!

[trebb]

Agree - SCOTUS will not engage until it is moved to them - but I believe they will hear it once that happens.

[Starboard]

Tossing out hundreds of thousands of illegal or fraudulent ballots leads to the cannard that the courts are disenfranchising voters. In fact those ballots are cancelling out legal votes. It’s the ultimate cancel culture!

************

Excellent post. Rather than whining about disenfranchising voters the bigger concern should be with cleaning up a voting system that has lost the confidence of at least half the voters in the state. They seem disinterested in remediating this fundamental problem which strikes at the heart of self governance.