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
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...
And he lost by an even bigger margin in 2020.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,921
Reaction score
15,320
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Voters are not electors, bottom line!

We have both voters, and electors.... the PA constitution is talking about what a chosen elector has to do or meet, in order to qualify for an absentee vote ballot. An Elector is who votes in the electoral college vote.

We the citizen voters, are not the electoral college and do not have to meet the qualifications of an Elector.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
3,553
Points
930
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).
There were three types of qualified electors
Those voting in-person
Those qualified absentee electors
And those who didn't vote at all.

The legislature added another type of qualified elector
Those who could vote by mail-in ballot.
Their numbers coming from those voting in-person, and from those not voting at all.

none of them came from the absentee electors.
 

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.
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...
And contrary to your 'alternative to reality', Biden got more democratic votes....80 million votes.... 12 million more legal votes than hillary got in 2016.... so what is your point?
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
3,553
Points
930
Voters are not electors, bottom line!

We have both voters, and electors.... the PA constitution is talking about what a chosen elector has to do or meet, in order to qualify for an absentee vote ballot. An Elector is who votes in the electoral college vote.

We the citizen voters, are not the electoral college and do not have to meet the qualifications of an Elector.
Please recalculate. PA law uses the term "presidential elector" to refer to those that vote in the electoral college.

They use the term elector to refer to people eligible to vote, and voter to refer to people who have already voted.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,921
Reaction score
15,320
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Voters are not electors, bottom line!

We have both voters, and electors.... the PA constitution is talking about what a chosen elector has to do or meet, in order to qualify for an absentee vote ballot. An Elector is who votes in the electoral college vote.

We the citizen voters, are not the electoral college and do not have to meet the qualifications of an Elector.
Please recalculate. PA law uses the term "presidential elector" to refer to those that vote in the electoral college.

They use the term elector to refer to people eligible to vote, and voter to refer to people who have already voted.
hmmmm, are you sure? Let me go reread it, again....
 
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...
And contrary to your 'alternative to reality', Biden got more democratic votes....80 million votes.... 12 million more legal votes than hillary got in 2016.... so what is your point?
Biden sure as hell did not get that many legal votes. Most unimpressive candidate in the US history, and almost certainly - if he wins - the worst US president in history.
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
3,079
Points
335
The Judge found 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:
Every citizen of this Commonwealth is entitled to no less than a fair and free election, it was necessary on November 25 to preliminarily enjoin, on an emergency and temporary basis, Executive Respondents from undertaking any other actions with respect to the certification of the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections, if indeed anything else needs to be done, pending an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the facts of this matter and to determine if the dispute is moot….
Certification Halted
Based upon the record before it, this Court has sufficient grounds to enjoin Respondents from further certification activities on an emergency preliminary basis, pending the results of the evidentiary hearing it had scheduled for this date, after which the Court would have determined if a preliminary injunction should issue. Since the Court is sitting in equity it has the power to fashion such relief as it is vitally important that the status quo be preserved pending further judicial scrutiny….
Fashion Relief For The Constitutional Violations In Mail-In Procedures
1606603576290.png

Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.
1606603612067.png

The Judge expressed grave concern as to what a remedy would be if she were to rule the mail-in balloting unconstitutional, so even if she ruled for the petitioners on the merits, it’s not clear if that would change the result:
That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors.
The Legislature has until Dec 8 to appoint Electors
1606603633636.png

The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.
The Judge concluded:
For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing
This is not a final ruling on the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules.

Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defecation would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together.

 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,921
Reaction score
15,320
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Voters are not electors, bottom line!

We have both voters, and electors.... the PA constitution is talking about what a chosen elector has to do or meet, in order to qualify for an absentee vote ballot. An Elector is who votes in the electoral college vote.

We the citizen voters, are not the electoral college and do not have to meet the qualifications of an Elector.
Please recalculate. PA law uses the term "presidential elector" to refer to those that vote in the electoral college.

They use the term elector to refer to people eligible to vote, and voter to refer to people who have already voted.
hmmmm, are you sure? Let me go reread it, again....
oh crappy poo! Looks like I was wrong....! Thanks for pointing it out!
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
Voters are not electors, bottom line!

We have both voters, and electors.... the PA constitution is talking about what a chosen elector has to do or meet, in order to qualify for an absentee vote ballot. An Elector is who votes in the electoral college vote.

We the citizen voters, are not the electoral college and do not have to meet the qualifications of an Elector.
That section of their constitution is speaking of voters. It includes the language...

... or who cannot vote because of election day duties ...

Voters vote on election day. The electoral college meets in December.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210
The Judge found 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:
Every citizen of this Commonwealth is entitled to no less than a fair and free election, it was necessary on November 25 to preliminarily enjoin, on an emergency and temporary basis, Executive Respondents from undertaking any other actions with respect to the certification of the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections, if indeed anything else needs to be done, pending an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the facts of this matter and to determine if the dispute is moot….
Certification Halted
Based upon the record before it, this Court has sufficient grounds to enjoin Respondents from further certification activities on an emergency preliminary basis, pending the results of the evidentiary hearing it had scheduled for this date, after which the Court would have determined if a preliminary injunction should issue. Since the Court is sitting in equity it has the power to fashion such relief as it is vitally important that the status quo be preserved pending further judicial scrutiny….
Fashion Relief For The Constitutional Violations In Mail-In Procedures
View attachment 422672
Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.
View attachment 422673
The Judge expressed grave concern as to what a remedy would be if she were to rule the mail-in balloting unconstitutional, so even if she ruled for the petitioners on the merits, it’s not clear if that would change the result:
That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors.
The Legislature has until Dec 8 to appoint Electors
View attachment 422674
The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.
The Judge concluded:
For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing
This is not a final ruling on the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules.

Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defecation would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together.

The presidential race is already certified
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
3,553
Points
930

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,536
Reaction score
23,435
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
The presidential race is already certified
Down ballot races haven't been certified.

But my understanding is the lawsuit halts the certification process, which includes delivering the Presidential certification to the legislature, which I think hasn't been done.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
8,320
Reaction score
2,814
Points
375
The remedy the courts will give is not going to be to throw out votes en masse....

They need the legislature to do that, and the PA legislature is only willing to bitch and moan at the moment

There is no hope of a court flipping these results. They won't.

Only the state legislatures and the senate would contemplate it. A judges role is not to throw out election results, they would make a ruling for next time.....
Actually the only thing the judge can do is to throw out the entire election, lock stock and barrell, everything voted on under the unconstitutional rule, including the PA primary elections.

This is a real constitutional crisis for PA, since that means their state house disappears after November 30th, along with half the state senate.

Those positions were similarly invalidated because of the unconstitutional election scheme they were held under.
You are incorrect//that is not the only thing a judge can do..he can rule the relief egregious...and render the mistake moot. Just sayin~
 
Last edited:

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.
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...
And contrary to your 'alternative to reality', Biden got more democratic votes....80 million votes.... 12 million more legal votes than hillary got in 2016.... so what is your point?
Biden sure as hell did not get that many legal votes. Most unimpressive candidate in the US history, and almost certainly - if he wins - the worst US president in history.
Don't underestimate The Force, against The Dark Side.... good will always prevail, in the end!!! :D

Biden got the vote of the people who supported him, and got the vote of the Never Trumpers, the Lincoln project types, and got the vote of new Republicans against Trump like the people who used to work for Trump and their followers, and got the vote of Independents and Green Party, and got more vote from the Military and families which the democrats are usually the underdogs... got more votes of suburban women...

In the big contested state cities like detroit and philadelphia, Biden actually got fewer votes in 2020 than Hillary got in 2016..... Biden got the vote of all of those 'others', which i mentioned above.... that's how he won.... not from cheating in the cities..like said: he got less votes than Hillary did there in the big cities....
 
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...
And contrary to your 'alternative to reality', Biden got more democratic votes....80 million votes.... 12 million more legal votes than hillary got in 2016.... so what is your point?
Biden sure as hell did not get that many legal votes. Most unimpressive candidate in the US history, and almost certainly - if he wins - the worst US president in history.
Don't underestimate The Force, against The Dark Side.... good will always prevail, in the end!!! :D

Biden got the vote of the people who supported him, and got the vote of the Never Trumpers, the Lincoln project types, and got the vote of new Republicans against Trump like the people who used to work for Trump and their followers, and got the vote of Independents and Green Party, and got more vote from the Military and families which the democrats are usually the underdogs... got more votes of suburban women...

In the big contested state cities like detroit and philadelphia, Biden actually got fewer votes in 2020 than Hillary got in 2016..... Biden got the vote of all of those 'others', which i mentioned above.... that's how he won.... not from cheating in the cities..like said: he got less votes than Hillary did there in the big cities....
Biden got the vote of shills who want to have their families as rich as the Biden's off other people's money. Americans... not so much.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,294
Reaction score
13,373
Points
2,210

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
10,466
Reaction score
2,291
Points
290
Location
State 48
That's not her call to make

It is the legislature's call
"Not her call to make", may make sense in more than the reason you say. The arguments for the other side include saying the lawyers that brought the case filed it in the wrong court.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
850
Reaction score
1,040
Points
873
Location
Wisconsin
The Judge found 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:
Every citizen of this Commonwealth is entitled to no less than a fair and free election, it was necessary on November 25 to preliminarily enjoin, on an emergency and temporary basis, Executive Respondents from undertaking any other actions with respect to the certification of the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections, if indeed anything else needs to be done, pending an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the facts of this matter and to determine if the dispute is moot….
Certification Halted
Based upon the record before it, this Court has sufficient grounds to enjoin Respondents from further certification activities on an emergency preliminary basis, pending the results of the evidentiary hearing it had scheduled for this date, after which the Court would have determined if a preliminary injunction should issue. Since the Court is sitting in equity it has the power to fashion such relief as it is vitally important that the status quo be preserved pending further judicial scrutiny….
Fashion Relief For The Constitutional Violations In Mail-In Procedures
View attachment 422672
Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.
View attachment 422673
The Judge expressed grave concern as to what a remedy would be if she were to rule the mail-in balloting unconstitutional, so even if she ruled for the petitioners on the merits, it’s not clear if that would change the result:
That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors.
The Legislature has until Dec 8 to appoint Electors
View attachment 422674
The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.
The Judge concluded:
For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing
This is not a final ruling on the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules.

Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defecation would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together.

This the kind of case Roberts likes. It's a technical matter with direct Constitutional ramifications.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
3,553
Points
930
Actually the only thing the judge can do is to throw out the entire election, lock stock and barrell, everything voted on under the unconstitutional rule, including the PA primary elections.
You are incorrect//that is not the only thing a judge can do..he can rule the relief egregious...and render the mistake moot. Just sayin~
I read the judges opinion in support of his injunction, and realized he granted relief based on the defendants limited time to counter the plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief, and some misdirection as to the issues, such as jurisdiction they were originally to respond to.

The judge being given a news release that the secretary of state had certified the election, but the process not completed, gave him a 10 day window in which he could temporary stop the certification, and have time to hear the case.

I believe it wasn't until the issue was appealed to the PA supreme court, that the true counter arguments were submitted. That mail-in ballots enacted under section 1301-d, was completely separate from, and did not modify the absentee ballot section 1301. Thus not a violation of the PA constitution.

In short, the unconstitutional objection had no merit, as the new law was a separate addition to election law, and was not subject to the absentee ballot requirements of the PA constitution.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top