Republicans Ask Supreme Court to Relook at Pennsylvania Mail Ballot Extended Deadline

But that's exactly what the Governor and the state court did.

No, the PA Supreme Court ruled that the changes were legal and supported by the free and equal elections provision in the PA constitution.

We may not agree with their reasoning but it's hard to imagine any state supreme court saying it's OK for the legislature to flatly ignore existing law and unilaterally decide how to choose electors without going through the constitutional process.

If the PA supremes said the legislature could do it then we would have an analogous situation.

It hasn't been needed before because the opposition hasn't been as brazen before, and politically it would have been a risk before.

So in 230 years no legislatures of any party decided to use this incredible power? Color me skeptical.

It's time for the Republicans to stake out the claim that they have the Constitutional power to set Elector selection law, and the court had no jurisdiction to change their laws.

Sorry, but I think the notion that a legislature can unilaterally create laws in contravention of the constitution that created it is nuts.

Your last post didn't really address my points.

Do you expect Pennsylvania to create a chaotic situation such that they fail to meet the safe harbor date for the Electoral College and therefore don't participate?

My Florida timeline at the start shows what happens if they take 10 days out of the calendar due to counting the votes. They are robbing time from the post-election challenge period.

Am I to conclude that you would prefer the entire disenfranchisement of the state of Pennsylvania to the legislature stepping in to keep the state in the Electoral College?

-PJ

Am I to conclude that you would prefer the entire disenfranchisement of the state of Pennsylvania to the legislature stepping in to keep the state in the Electoral College?

My preference doesn't enter into it. The USSC has ruled in McPherson v Blacker that based on the 14th Amendment the state legislature cannot violate state constitutional voter rights in a presidential election.

"Whenever presidential electors are appointed by popular election, then the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged without invoking the penalty; and so of the right to vote for representatives in congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof. The right to vote intended to be protected refers to the right to vote as established by the laws and constitution of the state."

Having the legislature unilaterally chose the electors would be in clear violation of the state constitution and SCOTUS has explicitly ruled that's unacceptable, Article II Section 1 notwithstanding.

Could SCOTUS ignore precedent and rule differently this time? Sure, but I'm betting against it. Not because that's what I want but because the law seems pretty clear cut.

Again, you side-stepped the core issue.

From your quote:

"Whenever presidential electors are appointed by popular election, then the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged without invoking the penalty...

The point you seem to wish to ignore is that we're talking about a situation where the state fails to appoint because the "popular election" results cannot be determined by the safe harbor date prior to the Electoral College meeting to vote.

This scenario is premised on the theory that the Democrat states went to mail-in ballots to purposely strain the system, and then force court challenges to delay the certification of these elections to some point in the future in order to deny President Trump a clear win on election day. Extending the deadline to receive the mail-in ballots was a significant part of delaying the certification while Democrat lawyers challenge the votes and demand the inclusion of late votes with unclear postmarks.

There was early talk in the media of the election stretching into January and Nancy Pelosi becoming acting President. I attempted to debunk this talk by saying:

The same chaos that makes determining the Presidential election impossible will also affect calling the House races. If Republican states can certify their House races but Democrat states cannot, then it's likely that the seated Republicans in the House will have a majority because the delayed Democrat seats are vacant and won't choose Pelosi as Speaker.
Even if the Senate races also can't be determined, two-thirds of the Senate are not running and still seated. Because Article V says "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate," Governors in these Democrat states can appoint a Senator to fill the vacancy until the votes are resolved, leaving a functioning Senate in place.
The safe-harbor date for the Electoral College means that the choosing of Electors cannot be stretched into 2021. There is no scenario where the Speaker becomes the acting President because of Democrat-induced chaos. The Electoral College WILL meet and they WILL choose a President.

So getting back to the original premise of this discussion, if the state is at risk of failing to appoint its Electors, does the legislature have the power to step in and directly appoint the electors before the safe harbor date passes? Florida certainly thought so. The alternative is the disenfranchisement of the entire state.

-PJ

...if the state is at risk of failing to appoint its Electors, does the legislature have the power to step in and directly appoint the electors before the safe harbor date passes?

In my opinion, no. Not without going through the constitutionally sanctioned process.

And SCOTUS precedent is on my side.

Just because they'll be a messy outcome isn't justification for ignoring the constitution.

Our system isn't based on us ultimately asking Daddy (the state legislature) to resolve our conflicts.

The US Constitution defined a process regardless of the PA result and I think that's what SCOTUS will uphold.

Fine. I think that's the "Constitution is a suicide pact" thinking, which I disagree with.

Your conclusion is that the legislature is helpless to step in and protect the people from the havoc caused by activist courts, even when Article II gives supremacy to the legislatures when choosing electors and time has run out.

I think this discussion has run its course. Both sides are clear for future readers to conclude for themselves.

-PJ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.