[SeekAndFind]

RE: It does not allow for a blanket mail-in ballot provision for all voters, which is what the lawsuit alleges makes Act77 unconstitutional.

OK, I agree that mass mailing of ballots without checking residency or whether recipients are living or dead is an invitation to mass fraud.

But isn’t this all water under the bridge now? The time for litigating the constitutionality of this should have been MONTHS before the election. You don’t expect a judge to throw out millions of mail-in ballots after the fact...

[nwrep]

Before the election, it was an abstract argument, with the only party having standing being the state legislators, who actually signed off on this travesty! Now, there is an aggrieved party (some of those same legislators, who lost their election because of mail-in ballot margins), and who now have standing.

[etcb]

Is it a question of throwing out millions of votes after the fact or it a question oa allowing millions of illegal votes to nullify legal votes. Someone will be disenfranchised either way, so should the judge make a ruling based on law or emotion?

[Carl Vehse]

"The time for litigating the constitutionality of this should have been MONTHS before the election. You don’t expect a judge to throw out millions of mail-in ballots after the fact..."

The judge does need to declare the mail-in ballots invalid if they violate the state constitution.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

You don’t expect a judge to throw out millions of mail-in ballots after the fact...
............................................
Why not? The act of using them must precede adjudicating whether doing so was unconstitutional. If they were not used there would be no need to determine the question of their constitutionality! Courts don’t spend time and money on hypothetical legal questions.