Arguably, yes. It's an aggressive interpretation of PA's Free and Equal Elections Clause but the PASC provided its reasoning and claims it's a reasonable response to a natural disaster. SCOTUS hasn't yet chosen to slap them down.
Wouldn't it be in the power of the legislature to say that if the court changes the passed law, then the legislature has the right to change the law back to stop the court's overreach without oversight?
Nothing's stopping the legislature from passing new legislation closing the natural disaster "loophole", but they can't just declare it gone.
If the court refuses, then isn't it in the legislature's constitutional power to declare a one-time slate of electors because the governor and the court created unconstitutional chaos in the system and the legislature is obligated to step in and fix it?
Of course not. That's not the way our system of checks and balances works.
It isn't the legislature, particularly on a partisan basis, that determines whether a court action is constitutional or not.
Does "to the contrary notwithstanding" mean that the Legislature's execution of its Article II Section 1 power is supreme and is not constrained by any laws passed within the state?
There's nothing in the PA constitution than says the legislature can't determine how electors are chosen, so there's not really a conflict.
The state constitution does, however, determine the process for the legislature to make that choice.
It really can't be any other way. Without the law making process defined in the constitution how would the legislature do it?
For example, what would the margin of legislative votes need to be? Simple majority? Super majority? Declaration by the House Speaker and Senate leader?
How do the new rules get memorialized and published? A memo to the public?
Once you step outside the state's constitutional process for making laws the process is literally lawless and entirely up to the most powerful faction in the state legislature.
I don't think that's what the framers envisioned.
You wrote:
“If the court refuses, then isn’t it in the legislature’s constitutional power to declare a one-time slate of electors because the governor and the court created unconstitutional chaos in the system and the legislature is obligated to step in and fix it?
Of course not. That’s not the way our system of checks and balances works.”
This is incorrect, the PA legislature can step in and appoint a slate of electors. This was just discussed on Mark Levin a couple of days ago, if you are interested, and the Trump administration is also discussing this with them. My understanding is that at this point, the GOP-controlled legislature is reluctant to do this, but if the cheating becomes too outrageous, there is a very real chance they will elect to do this, just as the Florida legislature was preparing to do when the S/C stepped in, in the +Bush/Gore hanging chad fiasco.
Nothing's stopping the legislature from passing new legislation closing the natural disaster "loophole", but they can't just declare it gone.
First, let's see if we can agree to stipulate that there are two parallel elections taking place: 1) statewide elections where the normal "checks and balances" of state laws and state constitutions apply, and 2) Presidential Elector elections that are ordained and established by the Constitution of the United State.
Within statewide elections for state offices, I'd agree that the governor signs laws passed by the legislature, and the courts oversee and interpret. But with Electors to the Electoral College, the Constitution says that the Legislatures choose the method of selecting Electors. There are no limits on that power.
Politically, I'd agree with anyone that making a unilateral choice to overturn the wishes of the voters is dangerous and risks being voted out of office. However, I'd say that it, in itself, is "check and balance" against a state's other offices from abuse. The Constitution names the state legislature as the final arbiter of Elector selection. What they say goes.
That's not the way our system of checks and balances works. It isn't the legislature, particularly on a partisan basis, that determines whether a court action is constitutional or not.
Again, we need to separate the statewide office elections from the federal elections.
States are sovereign governments. They delegated limited powers to the federal government for the common good of all the states. The President is the executive of the federation of states. The Senate is the ambassadorial forum for the sovereign states, and the House represents the desires of the people of the Unites States.
Senators represent the needs of their state to their peer Senators from the other states in the Senate, and they debate the priorities of each state's needs against the others (or so it was supposed to be).
The state legislatures control the method of selecting the Electors to the Electoral College, which in turn chooses the President. The President was not supposed to be the ruler of the people, he was supposed to be the executive of the federation of states charged with executing the laws of the United States.
Those are your checks and balances at the federal level to choose the President. State courts are not supposed to usurp the legislature's role in the selection of the federal executive. They can intervene in local races, but the Constitution gives them no role in the selection of the President. Article VI reinforces this.
There's nothing in the PA constitution than says the legislature can't determine how electors are chosen, so there's not really a conflict. The state constitution does, however, determine the process for the legislature to make that choice.
I will admit to not being fluent in the state constitution of Pennsylvania. That said, Article VI says that the process to make that choice is whatever the legislature chooses. Regarding the choosing of Electors, and only the choosing of Electors, if the state legislature decides to ignore prior law and make its own emergency choice, they have the Constitutional power to do so. The politics of it can be sorted out later.
Once you step outside the state's constitutional process for making laws the process is literally lawless and entirely up to the most powerful faction in the state legislature. I don't think that's what the framers envisioned.
But it is. The Constitution gives the state legislature the power to choose the method of selecting Electors and puts no boundaries on that. The Constitution also gives the state legislatures the power to call for Article V conventions to propose amendments to the Constitution, without governor or state court oversight. The Constitution also gives the state legislature the power to ratify amendments to the Constitution, without governor or state court oversight.
Nobody is suggesting that a Governor or a state court can overturn the ratification of an amendment, are they? So where do they get the power to overturn the method of selecting Electors to the Electoral College?
-PJ