Replies

The rest is that the Act 77 related issues are two-fold.

First, the “law” being applied, in part, in the conduct of the election was not ever constitutionally enabled by the legislature... so the election itself was not conducted in accordance with the law. That unlawful election that was held leads to separate questions: how can you certify as legitimate an election that was not conducted in accordance with the law ? And, why would you ?

The legislature answers, only... “we refuse to validate the result” in an election that is not able to be validated. Or, if they otherwise proactively assert the result is not legitimate, but fail in resolving the resulting conflict ? That still leaves an inability to act legitimately... other than by sending forward an unresolved controversy.

Second, other elements of the “election law” that was followed, in fact... suffer the parallel defect that the law, as passed by the legislature, was unconstitutional.

You end up with three categories of problems in the actions that were taken... 1.) actions that were taken that failed to comply with the law, 2.) actions that were taken that followed improperly constituted “law” (and thus, not the law), and 3.) actions that were taken that followed the law as passed, when the law as passed violated the constitution.

Then, throw into that mix... the element in motive... showing that the failures that occurred were not benign, but were deliberate... that the failings weren’t random, but were purposeful acts that KNOWINGLY failed in actions undertaken that intended to create the problems we now see... to knowingly deliver an wrongful and incorrect result. Compound that element in motive with coordination occurring between actors in multiple regions within a state, or between multiple states ?

Only then... given the full scope of the concern... can you properly address specific questions of venue, standing, harms done and laches, in proper context of the full range of Constitutional issues... from enabling unlawful elections... to coordination in a conspiracy to subvert the conduct of the elections... but also the Constitution ?

Why did they split the issues between Powell and Giuliani in the way they did ? I’m not sure we know the answer yet. But, in the case in Pennsylvania, I think they’ve largely won the point in law re Act 77, and are likely to prevail at the SCOTUS on that issue... and they’ve ALSO largely won the argument in the Legislature... and have won from them what they need.

can you properly address specific questions of venue, standing, harms done and laches, in proper context of the full range of Constitutional issues... from enabling unlawful elections... to coordination in a conspiracy to subvert the conduct of the elections... but also the Constitution ?

From what I have seen and read, many state and lower federal courts have been using cutesy arguments of laches, standing, mootness, lack of harm, etc., to avoid addressing the 500 lbs. gorilla in the room, the fraud and gross violations of the Equal Protection Clause in the elections.

Not knowing what provisions do exist in state law in the various contested states is an issue ? You can’t tell what that bit in 3USC5 means without knowing the state laws in each state. And, I don’t pretend to know those laws.

We don't know what the state laws are largely because the state courts have largely side-stepped addressing the fraud. See above.

That says nothing at all about what happens either if the state law remains silent on that means of resolution under 3USC5... or what happens if the state actions, rather than being positively assertive, are instead the opposite... a negation... and a deliberate withholding of any validation.

Plainly if there is no law to resolve problems selecting presidential electors, or if those problems dodn't get resolved for some reason, then the Safe Harbor provision doesn't apply. I don't think SCOTUS wants to resolve all issues from massive fraud in several states. By simply declaring that no Safe Harbor will apply to those states, they would kick the problem back to state courts, legislatures, and ultimately Congress to determine the final solution to the problem. Ultimately, the election of the president is a political issue.