excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,279
- 34,721
- 2,290
The constitution did not have to be amended, because the new law had nothing in common with the existing "absentee voter law"
To put in in terms you might understand, The Venn diagram of "absentee voters" and "mail-in voters" does not intersect.
Any voting law change by the Legislature then has to be put to the voters per the PA Constitution, and they failed to do that. Act 77 changed the PA Constitution's voting requirements and thus had to be put per the PA Constitution to the people. It was not.
Under Pennsylvania’s constitution, only those qualified to vote may cast ballots, and voting must occur either (1) in person at a polling place or (2) by absentee ballot. Pennsylvania’s constitution permits only four categories of qualified voters to cast absentee ballots.
The first is those who:
¯ “may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere.”
The second, third, and fourth are those “who, on the occurrence of any election”:
¯ “are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability”;
¯ “will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday”; and
¯ “cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee.”
In other words, under Pennsylvania’s constitution, qualified voters who want to cast ballots and fall under none of these four categories may vote only — yes, only –by showing up at a polling place and voting in person. Any other form of voting runs afoul of Pennsylvania’s constitution.
Nevertheless, in 2019 the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed, and the governor signed, a bill allowing all — yes, all — qualified Pennsylvania voters to cast ballots without showing up at a polling place and voting in person. This law — called “Act 77” — reaches beyond what Pennsylvania’s constitution permits.
Pa. Election Law Is Unconstitutional
The U.S. Supreme Court has considered its first 2020 presidential-election challenge since Election Day. Although the high court has declined to give the challengers the preliminary relief they sought, the challengers could return and ask the court to consider their challenge fully on the...
www.post-journal.com