Posted on 11/28/2020 3:23:58 PM PST by Alter Kaker
The PA Supreme Court dismisses the case brought by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly that sought to overturn last year’s law creating no-excuse mail voting and to throw out those mail ballots cast in this election.
This is the case the Commonwealth Court had earlier blocked certification in.
On to the Federal Supreme Court.
Quick trip to SCOTUS - at least they hurried with this expected decision.
What was the basis of the law? If it was properly passed and signed by the governor, then it is legal (although it shouldn’t be constitutional, for several reasons).
5Ds v 2Rs = forgone conclusion.
the PA Supreme Court is part of the problem in PA. they started a good bit of the chaos with their alteration of the election laws passed by the legislature.
Does PA have early voting?
The basis was that it was not properly passed. The Governer made the deal without legislative authority. Only the Legislature, State House and Senate can authorize the time, place and method of elections.
The governor mandated mail in voting without the legislature. The PA Constitution forbids this.
based on not filing on a timely manner. That is clearly an opinion of the court. Wonder what the Supreme court will say?
Mistake for the D's. Now its on to the SCOTUS without delay. Figuring Roberts for what he is should be 5/4 for the good guys.
Thanks, I had heard that but didn’t know it was this case. Interesting that it was shoved through last year, before the virus hit.
The Pennsylvania constitution explicitly specifies what persons may cast absentee ballots. Without purporting to change the constitution, the Pennsylvania legislature allowed anyone to cast an absentee ballot. The commonwealth (lower court) judge said, correctly, the Legislature could not do that without changing the constitution. I am not familiar with the rationale employed by the Supreme Court to reverse.
Should the Supreme Court accept review, it would put them in the curious position of enforcing the Pennsylvania state constitution against the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s (blatantly partisan and erroneous) decision interpreting their own state constitution.
Not true. The Republican legislature passed a law expanding absentee voting. Congressman Kelly challenged the law after the election as unconstitutional under the PA state Constitution.
Doesn’t Sean Parnell have a similar suit?
the one that was ruled on favorably this am
If I understand the facts of this correctly, then the Federal courts aren’t likely to touch it. I’m pretty sure the legal challenge was based on the Pennsylvania constitution, so I don’t see a clear role for the Federal courts here.
The law has a severability clause.
Agree.
It's the same case. Parnell is one of the plaintiffs, Kelly was lead plaintiff. PA State Supreme Court just threw out the whole case.
The Pennsylvania Court of Supreme Whim said in its ruling that although the mail in ballot law says otherwise , they , in their infinite wisdom, shall ignore the law because of the China Virus.
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.