Well I think they illegally changed a rule so that was against the constitution. Including the there own states constitution.
If the court decides in favor of protecting voters in PA from being disenfranchised, would the set the precedent for other contested States to follow?
In these cases voter disenfranchisement is always discussed with sympathy usually expressed for those who relied on policy and procedure implemented by officials not constitutionally empowered to do so. Sympathy should not be a basis for a legal decision but often is. There is another important issue that is seldom considered. That is whether the officials implementing the policy illegally are going to be allowed to benefit from their illegal action. It is obvious and supported by results that the relaxed standards were for the benefit of one party and the issue more important than disenfranchisement is whether the officials responsible for the illegal policies are going to be allowed to reap the benefit of their illegality.
Normally a person committing an illegal act, regardless of motivation or knowledge is not allowed to benefit from that act. A good example is when money is improperly deposited into your bank account and you spend it. When it is discovered, you don’t get to keep it. The candidates elected as a result of illegal policies should not get to keep the votes.