PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

[colfax_m]

Biden did not win, Trump won the state if only legal votes are counted.

They will pick Trump.

Changing the rules after people voted in order to throw the votes out is probably the most undemocratic effort our country has faced in many decades.

 

[Norman]

Biden did not win, Trump won the state if only legal votes are counted.

They will pick Trump.

Changing the rules after people voted in order to throw the votes out is probably the most undemocratic effort our country has faced in many decades.

The rules were illegally changed before they voted.

It's an unlawful election. Mail in ballots are perhaps the most undemocratic thing to ever happen to the country. Scam selection...

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

 

[mascale]

In commenting on the the appeals court decision, everyone else in Pennsylvania, including the judge creating the evidentiary hearing: Is awaiting the Pennsylvania Supreme Court outcome. That case is about down-ballot certifications only. There was nothing apparent, left to "Perfect" in the matter of the President-Elect Biden Pennsylvania certification.
___________________________
A second case challenging Pennsylvania’s election results, brought by Republican down-ballot candidates in state court, is still playing out. A lower court issued an order Wednesday that blocked the state from taking further action to certify its results while the case played out in court. That ruling was then paused when the state appealed the order to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the case.
__________________

PA’s Top Court Expected To Act Quickly On Appeal To Let State Proceed With Election Certification

Gov. Tom Wolf and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar say a court order to halt the next steps Pennsylvania’s election certification process could interfere…

www.wesa.fm

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Deut 23: 19-20: Can be said a certification of Pharaoh's ruling arithmetic and gouging and screwing, from when Moses was a kid! Christians playing, "Moses Said" games likely not upheld. Their allegation is Jesus ben Joseph, Son of Mary, Called, "Oh Christ!" in usual English!)

 

[Lesh]

It's over. Give it up already

Jesus

 

[mascale]

"Former Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Byer tweeted Wednesday night that the commonwealth’s highest court will likely act quickly (and is designated to hear any Act 77 challenges, anyway). In the meantime, McCullough’s order is unenforceable – meaning DoS could choose to proceed with certification or wait for the outcome of their appeal, Byer wrote later in an email."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Deut 23: 19-20: Can be said a certification of Pharaoh's ruling arithmetic and gouging and screwing, from when Moses was a kid! Christians playing, "Moses Said" games likely not upheld. Their allegation is Jesus ben Joseph, Son of Mary, Called, "Oh Christ!" in usual English!)

 

[colfax_m]

Biden did not win, Trump won the state if only legal votes are counted.

They will pick Trump.

Changing the rules after people voted in order to throw the votes out is probably the most undemocratic effort our country has faced in many decades.

The rules were illegally changed before they voted.

It's an unlawful election. Mail in ballots are perhaps the most undemocratic thing to ever happen to the country. Scam selection...

You don’t punish people for following the law even if it is later determined to be unconstitutional.

 

[progressive hunter]

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]:

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.

legalinsurrection.com

Folks, mail in balloting already IS illegal in PA thank God.

 

[progressive hunter]

Biden did not win, Trump won the state if only legal votes are counted.

They will pick Trump.

Changing the rules after people voted in order to throw the votes out is probably the most undemocratic effort our country has faced in many decades.

The rules were illegally changed before they voted.

It's an unlawful election. Mail in ballots are perhaps the most undemocratic thing to ever happen to the country. Scam selection...

You don’t punish people for following the law even if it is later determined to be unconstitutional.

sorry but laws are not based on feelings,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The OP is wrong. The court did NOT find that mail-in ballots in PA are unconstitutional.

The court halted the certification process so those arguing that it is unconstitutional can have their say in court.

The judge also said that she didn’t know what the relief was, but that an election shouldn’t be tossed and handed to the legislature.

I am referring to the judge who stated there is a high chance it will be found unconstitutional, and believes it is unconstitutional. This is given in the OP.

Even a five year old can understand that the case is correct, the mail in ballots are illegal as is the act that put them in place. PA does not allow such acts to be simply enacted on a whim, it would not have been even possible to enact such a law at that point, amending the process requires two years and even then it appears the law only takes effect for the next election.

The judge did NOT say it was “high chance.” I read the brief. Nowhere does it say that.

She did say that the grounds have merit, and thus the arguments should be heard. But that’s what judges say whenever an argument isn’t baseless - like most of Trump’s filings - and has a reasonable chance in court.

this isnt a trump filing,,,

 

[Norman]

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]:

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.

legalinsurrection.com

Folks, mail in balloting already IS illegal in PA thank God.

Tim Pool always making videos on the subject.

Even the liberals Bernie Sanders voters agree that the election was sketchy as hell and should be thoroughly investigated.

 

[progressive hunter]

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]:

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.

legalinsurrection.com

Folks, mail in balloting already IS illegal in PA thank God.

Tim Pool always making videos on the subject.

Even the liberals Bernie Sanders voters agree that the election was sketchy as hell and should be thoroughly investigated.

I think even the dems see somethings wrong and why theyre trying so hard to shut down any type of audit or investigation,,,

 

[busybee01]

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]:

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.

legalinsurrection.com

Folks, mail in balloting already IS illegal in PA thank God.

This is a Republican judge. Also since the state has appealed to the Supreme Court, it has been stayed.

 

[progressive hunter]

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]:

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.

legalinsurrection.com

Folks, mail in balloting already IS illegal in PA thank God.

This is a Republican judge. Also since the state has appealed to the Supreme Court, it has been stayed.

got a link???

 

[busybee01]

The OP is wrong. The court did NOT find that mail-in ballots in PA are unconstitutional.

The court halted the certification process so those arguing that it is unconstitutional can have their say in court.

The judge also said that she didn’t know what the relief was, but that an election shouldn’t be tossed and handed to the legislature.

I am referring to the judge who stated there is a high chance it will be found unconstitutional, and believes it is unconstitutional. This is given in the OP.

Even a five year old can understand that the case is correct, the mail in ballots are illegal as is the act that put them in place. PA does not allow such acts to be simply enacted on a whim, it would not have been even possible to enact such a law at that point, amending the process requires two years and even then it appears the law only takes effect for the next election.

It was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. It is constitutional.

 

[Norman]

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]:

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.

legalinsurrection.com

Folks, mail in balloting already IS illegal in PA thank God.

This is a Republican judge. Also since the state has appealed to the Supreme Court, it has been stayed.

Who cares whether it's a republican judge. Let's recall it was the republicans who voted in the mail in nonsense in PA. They have a chance to be smarter now.

The judge stopped the funny games.

 

[busybee01]

How queer that Act 77 was perfectly fine and constitutional when Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell won their primaries with it in effect. They had many months prior to the election to challenge the constitutionality of act, but sat on their hands until after the election.

I hope your My Pillows are waterproof b/c I suspect a deluge of tears will follow when this gets thrown out of court as well.

I hope you're wrong, but the fact is Judge Alito (IIRC) ordered the PA election board to segregate a lot of those late entry mail in ballots and he was ignored. That might have at least 5 judges on the USSC pissed off enough to rule in Trump's favor.

Just sayin.

They did segregate the votes. There are not enough votes to overturn the results. Alito has not done anything else and the Supreme Court is not even discussing it in their weekly meetings.

 

[Norman]

The OP is wrong. The court did NOT find that mail-in ballots in PA are unconstitutional.

The court halted the certification process so those arguing that it is unconstitutional can have their say in court.

The judge also said that she didn’t know what the relief was, but that an election shouldn’t be tossed and handed to the legislature.

I am referring to the judge who stated there is a high chance it will be found unconstitutional, and believes it is unconstitutional. This is given in the OP.

Even a five year old can understand that the case is correct, the mail in ballots are illegal as is the act that put them in place. PA does not allow such acts to be simply enacted on a whim, it would not have been even possible to enact such a law at that point, amending the process requires two years and even then it appears the law only takes effect for the next election.

It was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. It is constitutional.

That's not even remotely correct, but argue with the judge!

 

[progressive hunter]

How queer that Act 77 was perfectly fine and constitutional when Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell won their primaries with it in effect. They had many months prior to the election to challenge the constitutionality of act, but sat on their hands until after the election.

I hope your My Pillows are waterproof b/c I suspect a deluge of tears will follow when this gets thrown out of court as well.

I hope you're wrong, but the fact is Judge Alito (IIRC) ordered the PA election board to segregate a lot of those late entry mail in ballots and he was ignored. That might have at least 5 judges on the USSC pissed off enough to rule in Trump's favor.

Just sayin.

They did segregate the votes. There are not enough votes to overturn the results. Alito has not done anything else and the Supreme Court is not even discussing it in their weekly meetings.

then why are dems so scared???