PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
Since mail-in voters are not absentee voters
THEY FALL UNDER THE SAME STATUTES


All it is is an absentee voter who doesn't meet whatever requirements. But they're still an absentee voter
You just defined stupidity.
Saying somebody who isn't an absentee voter, is still an absentee voter.
Same thing bro, same statutes

Can't just mail them out
They didn't.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
It's not a law in teh sense it has backing from the legislature, it's an election code or whatever they call it. It has no legislative force behind it.

The republican held legislature did not green light sending out mass absentee ballots

The only election law that's changed in PA has to do with when you count mail in votes that i'm aware of.
You have jumped the shark. It was a law passed by the legislature amending their previous election law from 1937


PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77Cl. 25
Session of 2019

No. 2019-77

SB 421

AN ACT

Amending the act of June 3, 1937 (P.L.1333, No.320), entitled "An act concerning elections
They have changed tehir election law via legislature twice in teh past two years

Once was act 77 pre corona, which gave them Penn voters the right to request an absentee ballot without an excuse. Not the right to get mailed one without requesting

The other was very recent and dealt with when you start counting mail in votes and when you stop accepting them.

There has no been legislative approval of sending out unsolicited ballots

They fill out absentee ballots because they're absentee voters, lol
Once was act 77 pre corona, which gave them Penn voters the right to request an absentee ballot without an excuse. Not the right to get mailed one without requesting

Now you’re lying. They are not absentee ballots. And they were not mailed out without a request for one.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,732
Reaction score
733
Points
140
Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.
Faun already answered that point.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
Since mail-in voters are not absentee voters
THEY FALL UNDER THE SAME STATUTES


All it is is an absentee voter who doesn't meet whatever requirements. But they're still an absentee voter

The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.

Literally how they define it, meaningless distinction legally.
Nope, they are not absentee voters. Absentee voters can mail in ballots if they are unable to vote in person. No-excuse mail-in ballots are for their electorate who are able to vote in person but choose not to.
ALl fall under absentee voters

Again "qualified mail in elector" is defined as an absentee voter without the excuse

ACT 77 which was passed last year allow for no excuse absentees. Not sending out mass ballots, you would have to request a ballot
Yet again, you demonstrate you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Pennsylvania did not send out mass ballots to all registered voters as some other states did. Registered voters had to request a msil-in ballot in order to receive one. And millions of Pennsylvanians did...

I already linked you the relevant statutes

Why do you think what the AP editors call it matters to me/
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,732
Reaction score
733
Points
140
It's not a law in teh sense it has backing from the legislature, it's an election code or whatever they call it. It has no legislative force behind it.

The republican held legislature did not green light sending out mass absentee ballots

The only election law that's changed in PA has to do with when you count mail in votes that i'm aware of.
You have jumped the shark. It was a law passed by the legislature amending their previous election law from 1937


PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77Cl. 25
Session of 2019

No. 2019-77

SB 421

AN ACT

Amending the act of June 3, 1937 (P.L.1333, No.320), entitled "An act concerning elections
They have changed tehir election law via legislature twice in teh past two years

Once was act 77 pre corona, which gave them Penn voters the right to request an absentee ballot without an excuse. Not the right to get mailed one without requesting

The other was very recent and dealt with when you start counting mail in votes and when you stop accepting them.

There has no been legislative approval of sending out unsolicited ballots

They fill out absentee ballots because they're absentee voters, lol
Once was act 77 pre corona, which gave them Penn voters the right to request an absentee ballot without an excuse. Not the right to get mailed one without requesting

Now you’re lying. They are not absentee ballots. And they were not mailed out without a request for one.
Again they're the same thing, legally

A qualified elector = absentee voter without the excuse, which you no longer need anyway

They even title some of hte sub sections absentee AND mail in voting with ballots with the same exact rules
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,062
Points
1,590
It's not a law in teh sense it has backing from the legislature, it's an election code or whatever they call it. It has no legislative force behind it.

The republican held legislature did not green light sending out mass absentee ballots

The only election law that's changed in PA has to do with when you count mail in votes that i'm aware of.
You have jumped the shark. It was a law passed by the legislature amending their previous election law from 1937


PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77Cl. 25
Session of 2019

No. 2019-77

SB 421

AN ACT

Amending the act of June 3, 1937 (P.L.1333, No.320), entitled "An act concerning elections
They have changed tehir election law via legislature twice in teh past two years

Once was act 77 pre corona, which gave them Penn voters the right to request an absentee ballot without an excuse. Not the right to get mailed one without requesting

The other was very recent and dealt with when you start counting mail in votes and when you stop accepting them.

There has no been legislative approval of sending out unsolicited ballots

They fill out absentee ballots because they're absentee voters, lol
Once was act 77 pre corona, which gave them Penn voters the right to request an absentee ballot without an excuse. Not the right to get mailed one without requesting

Now you’re lying. They are not absentee ballots. And they were not mailed out without a request for one.
It's not clear whether they are absentee ballots or not. It's worse for the case if they are not.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.
Faun already answered that point.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
Since mail-in voters are not absentee voters
As defined per the PA constitution, they are
Nope, not true. This is what their constitution says about absentee ballots...

§ 14. Absentee voting.
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors 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 or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.
(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.

That creates absentee ballots for some voters who cannot vote in person. The new law created a new type of no-excuse ballot, separate from absentee ballots, for voters who choose not to vote in person.

You'd have a point if they didn't create a new type of mail-in ballot but instead, but they did.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
It's not a law in teh sense it has backing from the legislature, it's an election code or whatever they call it. It has no legislative force behind it.

The republican held legislature did not green light sending out mass absentee ballots

The only election law that's changed in PA this year has to do with when you count mail in votes that i'm aware of.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It was passed by their state legislature and signed into law by their governor....


... even worse for you, it was signed into law a year before the election, so if it was unconstitutional, they had a year to challenge it. Republicans can't wait to see how the election turns out and then challenge a law they themselves passed after losing the election.

No court is going to disenfranchise millions of voters for that.
That just gives them a right to request an absentee ballot

Not gives the state the right to send ballots out en masse

Fucking massive distinction

And yes, "certified mail in electors" use you guessed it, absentee ballots, lol
That "distinction" exists nowhere outside of your head as Pennsylvania did not send out ballots "en masse" without first receiving a request for one.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,921
Reaction score
15,320
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
If anyone believes Biden would have won PA without the mail in votes with almost zero ballots thrown out as democrats did not enforce signature checking, they are delusional.

Since the mail in process was unlawful, the state should be given to Trump.
The process matters not, to the citizens who were told it was okay to vote that way.

They chose Biden, by nearly 80000 Pennsylvania citizens who voted in the manner they were TOLD WAS LEGAL....

Even if the whole state's citizen vote was thrown out ,(unlikely) and the legislature picks the electors, (unlikely), the legislators are REPRESENTATIVES, for the citizens, and the legislature should pick a slate of electors, that represents the vote of the PA voters, and send a Biden slate of electors.
Biden did not win, Trump won the state if only legal votes are counted.

They will pick Trump.
The citizen's constitutional right to vote, is greater than any technicality.if there even is one.

Shoot, we were trying to count chads in Florida because every citizen's vote counted, according to the court rulings.

We even counted all of the absentee votes from overseas, like the Military, after the election law stated was the absolute cut off date, for receiving them....

Every ruling, but the last from the SC, ruled in favor of discerning and counting, every last itty bitty, singular vote! Without any rules in the law or their constitution, of bending over backwards to make each vote of the citizen count, yet here we were...we were bending over backwards to make each vote count...

because the citizen's right to vote, is the singular backbone of our democracy and Democratic Republic...our nation... a representative and constitutional democratic republic. We, the voter choose our representatives and leaders, the leaders do not get to pick and choose the voters....

I do not think they will win in court on this and here is why....

Their constitution states this:


§ 14. Absentee voting.


(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors 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 or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.


(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.




This part of the PA constitution says this is for electors, well.. we the people ARE NOT THE Electors...... electors are whole different ballgame, there are many rules in the PA constitution that are rules on electors, like they have to be older than 21, they can not be in jail, they can not be arrested for anything other than a felony or inciting violence, around electoral college election day..they can not be bribed, etc etc etc.... and this means of qualifying for an absentee vote ballot is simply another one added to the list for who can be, and rules, for Electors to be chosen and rules to be followed.

The right wing is trying to claim, it seems, that this about electors in their constitution, can not be changed except through a constitutional amendment....

and my thoughts are that if these absentee vote rules for the electors, applied to we the people, the voter on election day then no one under the age of 21 could vote in the general or state elections, and that simply is NOT the case.... yet you still have to be 21 to be an Elector....to this day.

The Electors are not the voters, would be my argument....
 
Last edited:

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
Actually it was Republicans passed the law that they are attempting to declare unconstitutional.

This whole affair has shown just how delicate Democracy is, when people like yourself seem so willing to abandon it.
It's in the PA Constitution. Not just some law. You are clueless once again.
That piece of shit exists in a state of constant cluelessness.

We are not a democracy, we never were. The more we move towards one, the worse our country gets. We are approaching 3rd world status thanks to these sniveling parasites and their "democracy".

More of an Idiocracy if you ask me.


.
Jesus. You idiots lose one election and you’re begging for abandoning our founding principles and transitioning towards authoritarianism.
Cults gonna cult
If they throw out the mail in ballots and Trump wins PA, doesn't Biden still win the election?
Pennsylvania is not the only state Trump is targeting. If he can pull that of in two or more additional states to take an additional 17 or more electoral votes from Biden, he wins the election.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,062
Points
1,590
If anyone believes Biden would have won PA without the mail in votes with almost zero ballots thrown out as democrats did not enforce signature checking, they are delusional.

Since the mail in process was unlawful, the state should be given to Trump.
The process matters not, to the citizens who were told it was okay to vote that way.

They chose Biden, by nearly 80000 Pennsylvania citizens who voted in the manner they were TOLD WAS LEGAL....

Even if the whole state's citizen vote was thrown out ,(unlikely) and the legislature picks the electors, (unlikely), the legislators are REPRESENTATIVES, for the citizens, and the legislature should pick a slate of electors, that represents the vote of the PA voters, and send a Biden slate of electors.
Biden did not win, Trump won the state if only legal votes are counted.

They will pick Trump.
The citizen's constitutional right to vote, is greater than any technicality.if there even is one.

Shoot, we were trying to count chads in Florida because every citizen's vote counted, according to the court rulings.

We even counted all of the absentee votes from overseas, like the Military, after the election law stated was the absolute cut off date, for receiving them....

Every ruling, but the last from the SC, ruled in favor of discerning and counting, every last itty bitty, singular vote! Without any rules in the law or their constitution, of bending over bacwards to make each vote of the citizen count, we were bending over backwards to make each vote count...

because the citizen's right to vote, is the singular backbone of our democracy and Democratic Republic...our nation... a representative and constitutional democratic republic. We, the voter choose our representatives and leaders, the leaders do not get to pick and choose the voters....

I do not think they will win in court on this and here is why....

Their constitution states this:


§ 14. Absentee voting.


(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors 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 or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.


(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.




This part of the PA constitution says this is for electors, well.. we the people ARE NOT THE Electors...... electors are whole different ballgame, there are many rules in the PA constitution that are rules on electors, like they have to be older than 21, they can not be in jail, they can not be arrested for anything other than a felony or inciting violence, around electoral college election day..they can not be bribed, etc etc etc.... and this means of qualifying for an absentee vote ballot is simply another one added to the list for who can be, and rules, for Electors to be chosen and followed.

The right wing is trying to claim, it seems, that this about electors in their constitution, can not be changed except through a constitutional amendment....

and my thoughts are that if these absentee vote rules for the electors, applied to we the people, the voter on election day then no one under the age of 21 could vote in the general or state elections, and that simply is NOT the case.... yet you still have to be 21 to be an Elector....to this day.

The Electors are not the voters, would be my argument....
That's false, there is no such thing as a right to cast an illegal vote.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
850
Reaction score
1,040
Points
873
Location
Wisconsin
Conflating federal law and state constitution is absurd.
Both are examples of supremacy. And I showed that supremacy only holds in cases where the superior law controls. Where that law is silent, the inferior law is free to act.

As I said over and over, the PA legislature did not change the absentee ballot law (section 1301)

Instead they made a completely different mail-in ballot law (section 1301-d) that had nothing to do with the absentee ballots.

One covers people absent, or unable to go to the polls due to illness, business etc. The other covers people present, but not wishing to vote in person.

Two independent laws.
It's still a form of absentee voting and subject to the restrictions found in the constitution. Creating a new method of voting would require an amendment.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,536
Reaction score
23,434
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
That's false, there is no such thing as a right to cast an illegal vote.
It's not that simple.

If the PA law is found to be unconstitutional, the court still may allow the vote to stand because of the long history they have of supporting the franchise.

They might argue that if the plaintiffs were sincere in their argument, they would have filed it well in advance of the election so the state could fix the problem. But because they are only filing it after they lost the election, the remedy of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for all the votes in PA, not just the Presidential election, are too great.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,062
Points
1,590
That's false, there is no such thing as a right to cast an illegal vote.
It's not that simple.

If the PA law is found to be unconstitutional, the court still may allow the vote to stand because of the long history they have of supporting the franchise.

They might argue that if the plaintiffs were sincere in their argument, they would have filed it well in advance of the election so the state could fix the problem. But because they are only filing it after they lost the election, the remedy of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for all the votes in PA, not just the Presidential election, are too great.
That argument does not work, because again, there is no evidence they even knew of the problems until now. Further, that is not how the law works anyway, if they broke the law they broke the law, period. A judge could not make that ruling, because it's admitting that the plaintiffs are correct while refusing to address it.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
850
Reaction score
1,040
Points
873
Location
Wisconsin
Clearly the PA Constitution was violated. Sad that liberal morons probably just got all those votes tossed, but what else can be done?
Actually it was Republicans passed the law that they are attempting to declare unconstitutional.

This whole affair has shown just how delicate Democracy is, when people like yourself seem so willing to abandon it.
to bad for your opinion we are not a democracy,,,
Im pretty sick or you idiots attempting to sound intelligent. Just don’t.
Coming from you, of all people, that's actually funny.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.
Faun already answered that point.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
Since mail-in voters are not absentee voters
THEY FALL UNDER THE SAME STATUTES


All it is is an absentee voter who doesn't meet whatever requirements. But they're still an absentee voter

The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.

Literally how they define it, meaningless distinction legally.
Nope, they are not absentee voters. Absentee voters can mail in ballots if they are unable to vote in person. No-excuse mail-in ballots are for their electorate who are able to vote in person but choose not to.
ALl fall under absentee voters

Again "qualified mail in elector" is defined as an absentee voter without the excuse

ACT 77 which was passed last year allow for no excuse absentees. Not sending out mass ballots, you would have to request a ballot
Yet again, you demonstrate you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Pennsylvania did not send out mass ballots to all registered voters as some other states did. Registered voters had to request a msil-in ballot in order to receive one. And millions of Pennsylvanians did...

I already linked you the relevant statutes

Why do you think what the AP editors call it matters to me/
Who knows what you posted but act 77 requires registered voters to request mail-in ballots...

(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act and notwithstanding the inclusion of a mailing address on an absentee or mail-in ballot application, a voter who presents the voter's own application for an absentee or mail-in ballot within the office of the county board of elections during regular business hours may request to receive the voter's absentee or mail-in ballot while the voter is at the office. This request may be made orally or in writing. Upon presentation of the application and the making of the request and upon approval under sections 1302.2 and 1302.2-D, the county board of elections shall promptly present the voter with the voter's absentee or mail-in ballot. If a voter presents the voter's application within the county board of elections' office in accordance with this section, a county board of elections may not deny the voter's request to have the ballot presented to the voter while the voter is at the office unless there is a bona fide objection to the absentee or mail-in ballot application.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,732
Reaction score
733
Points
140
Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.
Faun already answered that point.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
Since mail-in voters are not absentee voters
THEY FALL UNDER THE SAME STATUTES


All it is is an absentee voter who doesn't meet whatever requirements. But they're still an absentee voter

The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.

Literally how they define it, meaningless distinction legally.
Nope, they are not absentee voters. Absentee voters can mail in ballots if they are unable to vote in person. No-excuse mail-in ballots are for their electorate who are able to vote in person but choose not to.
ALl fall under absentee voters

Again "qualified mail in elector" is defined as an absentee voter without the excuse

ACT 77 which was passed last year allow for no excuse absentees. Not sending out mass ballots, you would have to request a ballot
Yet again, you demonstrate you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Pennsylvania did not send out mass ballots to all registered voters as some other states did. Registered voters had to request a msil-in ballot in order to receive one. And millions of Pennsylvanians did...

I already linked you the relevant statutes

Why do you think what the AP editors call it matters to me/
Who knows what you posted but act 77 requires registered voters to request mail-in ballots...

(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act and notwithstanding the inclusion of a mailing address on an absentee or mail-in ballot application, a voter who presents the voter's own application for an absentee or mail-in ballot within the office of the county board of elections during regular business hours may request to receive the voter's absentee or mail-in ballot while the voter is at the office. This request may be made orally or in writing. Upon presentation of the application and the making of the request and upon approval under sections 1302.2 and 1302.2-D, the county board of elections shall promptly present the voter with the voter's absentee or mail-in ballot. If a voter presents the voter's application within the county board of elections' office in accordance with this section, a county board of elections may not deny the voter's request to have the ballot presented to the voter while the voter is at the office unless there is a bona fide objection to the absentee or mail-in ballot application.
Here is where they actually define it

"The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector."

that's lawyer speak for they're the same thing unless specified otherwise

As i have said many times.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
3,403
Points
290
Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.
Faun already answered that point.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
Since mail-in voters are not absentee voters
THEY FALL UNDER THE SAME STATUTES


All it is is an absentee voter who doesn't meet whatever requirements. But they're still an absentee voter

The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.

Literally how they define it, meaningless distinction legally.
It is a very meaningful distinction. mail-in elector and absentee elector are very distinct differences.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,536
Reaction score
23,434
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
That argument does not work, because again, there is no evidence they even knew of the problems until now. Further, that is not how the law works anyway, if they broke the law they broke the law, period. A judge could not make that ruling, because it's admitting that the plaintiffs are correct while refusing to address it.
The case in PA isn't about fraud or anyone breaking the law. Nobody is arguing that.

The case is about the constitutionality of the law.

That could have been argued shortly after it was passed last year.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
3,553
Points
930
This part of the PA constitution says this is for electors, well.. we the people ARE NOT THE Electors...... electors are whole different ballgame, there are many rules in the PA constitution that are rules on electors, like they have to be older than 21, they can not be in jail, they can not be arrested for anything other than a felony or inciting violence, around electoral college election day..they can not be bribed, etc etc etc.... and this means of qualifying for an absentee vote ballot is simply another one added to the list for who can be, and rules, for Electors to be chosen and rules to be followed.

The right wing is trying to claim, it seems, that this about electors in their constitution, can not be changed except through a constitutional amendment....

and my thoughts are that if these absentee vote rules for the electors, applied to we the people, the voter on election day then no one under the age of 21 could vote in the general or state elections, and that simply is NOT the case.... yet you still have to be 21 to be an Elector....to this day.

The Electors are not the voters, would be my argument....
I originally thought the same, but after reading through pennsylvania election law, it used the term elector 328 times, voter 110 times, and presidential elector 41 times. I realized they used "elector" meaning "voter", and in most instances the term "presidential elector" to mean those who are in the electoral college.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top