PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

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.
It is a very meaningful distinction. mail-in elector and absentee elector are very distinct differences.
Only when specified

That's what that means
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,536
Reaction score
23,434
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
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.
Good for you.

This is why I didn't become a lawyer.

Reading legal documents and statutes is like pulling teeth!
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
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.
Illegal votes were not counted.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
21,005
Reaction score
6,595
Points
265
It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
The SC of PA will probably weigh in soon. SCOTUS will not, there’s no federal question.

Waiting until after the election to file the lawsuit is particularly cruel.
The case is not about intent of the filers, and it's rather absurd to call them cruel when we don't even know when they found out about the problem.

Do recall, the law got passed and no fuzz was risen about the fact it's illegal by anyone. A supreme act of incompetence.
The law was passed over a year ago. If the people wanted to file a lawsuit, they should have done it before the election rather than waiting until after when the lawsuit may result in throwing out millions of votes from people who did nothing wrong.
Filing a case before election would be an executive function, as it is their responsibility to enforce the law. Had the legislature filed prior to the election it would have been in bad faith and preempted the executive's ability to enforce the laws. Clearly election officials were asleep at the wheel.
What a bunch of gibberish.
Very insightful rebuttle.

You must have won all your debates in Jr high.
No. It wasn’t insightful. It was gibberish with no meaning. Im not surprised you can’t tell the difference because you’re so fond of latching onto gibberish.
Well I do reply to yours from time to time.
Your replies to me are basically just you acting like an ass. There’s very little content other than your vitriol.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
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.
Nope, it's not a form of absentee ballots. Absentee ballots are for voters who can't vote in person on election day. That's not what these ballots are. The only things they have in common with absentee ballots are that you have to request one and that you return it.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,732
Reaction score
733
Points
140
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.
Nope, it's not a form of absentee ballots. Absentee ballots are for voters who can't vote in person on election day. That's not what these ballots are. The only things they have in common with absentee ballots are that you have to request one and that you return it.
The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
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.
What problem? There is no problem.
 

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.
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.
"who is not" means they are not the same.
 

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.
"who is not" means they are not the same.
If that was true, you don't put that line in at all bud

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

Lawyer speak for they're the same. Otherwise absentee electors would not be mentioned
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
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.
Nope, it's not a form of absentee ballots. Absentee ballots are for voters who can't vote in person on election day. That's not what these ballots are. The only things they have in common with absentee ballots are that you have to request one and that you return it.
The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
"not"
 

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.
Nope, it's not a form of absentee ballots. Absentee ballots are for voters who can't vote in person on election day. That's not what these ballots are. The only things they have in common with absentee ballots are that you have to request one and that you return it.
If it's not in person it is a form of absentee and subject to such restrictions set forth by the constitution. If it was separate it would require an amendment.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,151
Reaction score
12,140
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
A Pennsylvania state court Judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week, and is significant because of the findings made in the Opinion released tonight.

You can read the Opinion here.

The case has been somewhat under the radar, because it doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief.

The issue in this case is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections.


Here is the Judge’s description of the claim:
In the Petition, Petitioners allege that the Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 (Act 77), which added and amended various absentee and mail-in voting provisions in the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code),1 is unconstitutional and void ab initio because it purportedly contravenes the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Petitioners allege that Article VII, section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides two exclusive mechanisms by which a qualified elector may cast his or her vote in an election: (1) by submitting his or her vote in propria persona at the polling place on election day; and (2) by submitting an absentee ballot, but only if the qualified voter satisfies the conditions precedent to meet the requirements of one of the four, limited exclusive circumstances under which absentee voting is authorized under the Pennsylvania constitution. (Petition, ¶16.) Petitioners allege that mail-in voting in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal, no-excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority. Id., ¶17. Petitioners argue that in order to amend the Constitution, mandatory procedural requirements must be strictly followed. Specifically, pursuant to Article XI, Section 1, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority vote of the members of both the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions, then the proposed amendment must be published for three months ahead of the next general election in two newspapers in each county, and finally it must be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot question in the next general election and approved by a majority of those voting on the amendment. According to Petitioners, the legislature did not follow the necessary procedures for amending the Constitution before enacting Act 77 which created a new category of mail-in voting; therefore, the mail-in ballot scheme under Act 77 is unconstitutional on its face and must be struck down. Id., ¶¶27, 35-37. As relief, Petitioners seek, inter alia, a declaration and/or injunction that prohibits Respondents from certifying the November 2020 General Election results, which include mail-in ballots that are permitted on a statewide basis and are allegedlyimproper because Act 77 is unconstitutional.
The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had “certified” the results, because there were more steps to be taken [emphasis added]:



Folks, mail in balloting already IS illegal in PA thank God.
FOR THE LOVE OF SOUR YAK CHEESE!!!

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE PRESENT THIS SHIT TO A COURT???

:laughing0301:
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
3,553
Points
930
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
The words eligible gun buyer shall mean a US citizen who is not a convicted felon.

You claim that's lawyer speak for convicted felons and eligible gun buyers being the same.
 

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.
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.
"who is not" means they are not the same.
If that was true, you don't put that line in at all bud

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

Lawyer speak for they're the same. Otherwise absentee electors would not be mentioned
That line is in there to create a distinction between the two.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,732
Reaction score
733
Points
140
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.
Nope, it's not a form of absentee ballots. Absentee ballots are for voters who can't vote in person on election day. That's not what these ballots are. The only things they have in common with absentee ballots are that you have to request one and that you return it.
The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.
"not"
This is why you aren't a lawyer

I'm not a lawyer by choice
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
5,504
Points
1,903
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.
Who knows why you think it's so implausible Biden won in a state that Trump barely won 4 years ago?
Because trump won the election last year and his popularity has gone UP not down-
Because Trump get thousands of people at his rallies while Biden is lucky if he gets 10 people total.
Because all the signs up were overwhelmingly for Trump..
Because the dems cheat lie and steal as a matter of everyday living-----they have done all they could leading up to, during, and after the election to make cheating easier.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,732
Reaction score
733
Points
140
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
The words eligible gun buyer shall mean a US citizen who is not a convicted felon.

You claim that's lawyer speak for convicted felons and eligible gun buyers being the same.
Where in the law does it say that/

There is a reason you don't see it.

I'm a pretty good reader, they're saying unless specified they're all "qualified electors" (which previously were only absentee voters in this context). So in legal effect they're all qualified electors. We don't use that term we would call them absentee voters colloquially, mail in voting doesn't seem to have existed in any other form before this recent act 77 in PA law
 
Last edited:

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
3,553
Points
930
This is why I didn't become a lawyer.

Reading legal documents and statutes is like pulling teeth!
This is also why reading different state laws isn't easy, because the words they used may have different meanings in another state. And have to be gleaned from the context, not from their usual meaning.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
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.
Who knows why you think it's so implausible Biden won in a state that Trump barely won 4 years ago?
Because trump won the election last year and his popularity has gone UP not down-
Because Trump get thousands of people at his rallies while Biden is lucky if he gets 10 people total.
Because all the signs up were overwhelmingly for Trump..
Because the dems cheat lie and steal as a matter of everyday living-----they have done all they could leading up to, during, and after the election to make cheating easier.
LOL

You're insane. Trump did not win an election last year. And on what basis do you determine his popularity has gone up?
 
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.
Who knows why you think it's so implausible Biden won in a state that Trump barely won 4 years ago?
Because trump won the election last year and his popularity has gone UP not down-
Because Trump get thousands of people at his rallies while Biden is lucky if he gets 10 people total.
Because all the signs up were overwhelmingly for Trump..
Because the dems cheat lie and steal as a matter of everyday living-----they have done all they could leading up to, during, and after the election to make cheating easier.
LOL

You're insane. Trump did not win an election last year. And on what basis do you determine his popularity has gone up?
He did get many more LEGAL votes now than in 2016...
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top