PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,734
Reaction score
2,454
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
Since this came up "after" the election, where it would similarly invalidate their primary elections, carried out under the same unconstitutional rules.

There is an issue of "severability", where they may seek to throw out some of the votes (those done under the unconstitutional law) while retaining others. But this scheme may not be available, because like with many cases, if some of the rules under which something happened, they don't recalculate, but instead invalidate the entire event.

If the case goes to its logical conclusion, the PA primary elections, and the PA general election is thrown out. And the whole thing has to be rescheduled.
meaner gene

Do you think the outcome of the case would have been different had the challenge come shortly after the law was passed, so that if found unconstitutional, the remedy would have meant redesigning the election within enough time before the election?

The problem that I see it is that invalidating this election 10 days before the selection of electors becomes a mechanism for any candidate who lost a race - Republican or Democrat - to use this as a way to invalidate their loss, ie have a get out of jail free card. IOW I win, great - I lose, it doesn't count and I get a do-over.

Again Toro is clueless






“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
I'm sure they have ways to convene
There’s no one to convene. You throw out the results of the election, after Monday there are no representatives.
Again I highly doubt there are vacancies in the potions

How it works everywhere else is you're the rep until the next guy is sworn in

And IDK who is throwing out the results of the election? Republicans would not do that, they would just send their own electors and certify them. The federal* constitution doesn't' care about democracy as long as the state legislature sends certified electors things go on.

The only way they wouldn't is if they didn't have enough control to send what electors they want, then they might consider not certifying the electors. But the rational path is just certify with your own electors. Not make a mess at the federal level and get pelosi in as interim president while we sort this out.

PA's election is not over how the fuck are they going to certify electors if they all go home?
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
42,463
Reaction score
9,589
Points
2,040
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.
Dude, that's days old, was overturned within hours, appealed, and already lost.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
4,568
Reaction score
5,416
Points
1,903
Clearly the PA Constitution was violated. Sad that liberal morons probably just got all those votes tossed, but what else can be done?
The only remedy as I understand is that the legislatures decides the outcome.
I'm hoping that they have a recount and make everyone prove they are legal to vote-----I'd like to see what the vote really was based on a new election verses what the PA really claimed.
This will not work, that will not be the legal systems remedy to just throw out the whole fucking election because they changed the rules illegally.

You'd have to do the whole fucking thing over, there is no fantasy world where mail in votes are thrown out but the rest stay in.

Most judges in high positions are not even elected they will not do this, they will leave it to the legislature, it's clearly their job

I am more interested in comparing the two votes than what is their process at this point...........

I would much prefer that the cheating in the first election be clearly shown and that all involved be put in prison for it.

Legislature choosing is to easily corruptable--easier than voting for my tastes.

I didn't say they would do as I wish btw, just that I wish they would hold a recount instead.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
Yea they have to rule that it was unconstitutional

The remedy isn't going to be throw out the results

The remedy will be leave it to the legislature and not allow PA to do it next time.

THey are more likely to throw out ALL the votes, every single one, and force a re do of the whole thing than just throw out millions of mail in votes that lean towards one party.

But they aren't going to do any of that but say it was unconstitutional and give no real remedy for 2020. That's the easy path where no one can blame them. Would you want to be one of the judges who flips an election? No you wouldn't if you have sense
That's why I say PA is in a constitutional crisis. The legal remedy would paralyze their state government.

And they can't leave it to the legislate to fix, because their invalidating the election, also invalidates the state house.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
They are constitutional.....

Just sending them out en masse isn't according to the way PA has enshrined the rules
As I understand it, they want to throw out all of the mail-in votes.

View attachment 422589

Well they want to, but that is not the remedy they will get from any judge

Judges work under many different rule sets. One of the biggest being "don't make choices that the other branches of government are likely to be so incensed about they start ignoring the court"

This falls squarely in taht category, along with national security. Which is why judges do not touch these issues with a 10 foot pole and defer

In this case legislatures have total control of electors and are elected officials unlike judges. They will leave the remedy to them. If the state legislatures find the election results fraudulent they can do what they want with that information. Clearly unconstitutional.

I have spent too long listening to lawyers imagine they understand the legal arguments at play when they don't get the politics.

There is not a snowball's chance in hell any court's remedy to unconstitutional mail in voting is to throw them out. Irrelevant of what the law says. You have to go vote by vote to get them to throw them out.
 

mascale

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,589
Reaction score
709
Points
130
Again, the ruling is unenforceable, and OP notes that the matter is on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

"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!)
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
The courts are in an untenable position. They have to follow the law, and in this case the law points them over a cliff.
Or the PA SC could rule that mail-in ballots are constitutional.
From what I read of the lower court decision that's not possible without doing some very convoluted twisting of things. Such as concluding that everybody who voted under the unconstitutional mail-in ballot provision, would have all voted in-person had that provision not been available to them, and therefore those votes should be treated as if they were done in-person.

I know that's a complete fallacy, but it's the only one that would save the election.
 

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
5,921
Reaction score
1,462
Points
170
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.
if you throw out the election a dem will become temp pres.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
The courts are in an untenable position. They have to follow the law, and in this case the law points them over a cliff.
Or the PA SC could rule that mail-in ballots are constitutional.
From what I read of the lower court decision that's not possible without doing some very convoluted twisting of things. Such as concluding that everybody who voted under the unconstitutional mail-in ballot provision, would have all voted in-person had that provision not been available to them, and therefore those votes should be treated as if they were done in-person.

I know that's a complete fallacy, but it's the only one that would save the election.
Judges are under no obligation to give the remedy lawyers want

They do not have to throw out those votes

THey only need rule the changes to mail in voting unconstitutional, which it clearly was. The remedy is within their discretion

Don't know how much clearer I can make this
 

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
2,289
Points
290
Location
State 48
Why are you liberals so tone-deaf when it comes to a CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT vrs mere state legal code.
Why do you conservatives blindly accept the plaintiff's side of the case as gospel? You folks are pretty astute knowing that the media doesn't decide who wins elections but don't have a clue on who decides what's constitutional CONSTITUTIONAL and who does not. If I'm tone deaf then you're blind as a bat for not seeing that these clowns are pulling these lawsuits out from where the sun doesn't shine. And then you take them seriously. In baseball terms this will be just another failure at bat that will put the Trumpsters even further below the Mendoza Line.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
Why are you liberals so tone-deaf when it comes to a CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT vrs mere state legal code.
Why do you conservatives blindly accept the plaintiff's side of the case as gospel? You folks are pretty astute knowing that the media doesn't decide who wins elections but don't have a clue on who decides what's constitutional CONSTITUTIONAL and who does not. If I'm tone deaf then you're blind as a bat for not seeing that these clowns are pulling these lawsuits out from where the sun doesn't shine. And then you take them seriously. In baseball terms this will be just another failure at bat that will put the Trumpsters even further below the Mendoza Line.
It's a pretty cut and dry legal issue....

They put their mail in voting rules in the constitution.

A very contagious cold doesn't upend their constitution

The question is what is the remedy, not if it was illegal. Clearly it was illegal under PA law to send out those ballots.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
There’s no one to convene. You throw out the results of the election, after Monday there are no representatives.
Again I highly doubt there are vacancies in the potions

How it works everywhere else is you're the rep until the next guy is sworn in

Pa Constitution


§ 3. Terms of members.

Senators shall be elected for the term of four years and Representatives for the term of two years.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
There’s no one to convene. You throw out the results of the election, after Monday there are no representatives.
Again I highly doubt there are vacancies in the potions

How it works everywhere else is you're the rep until the next guy is sworn in

Pa Constitution


§ 3. Terms of members.

Senators shall be elected for the term of four years and Representatives for the term of two years.
Yea even year increments, what day were they sworn in genius? lol

For what you're saying to be true the term would have to be 3 years 11 months, 1 year 11 months.

Get off the internet retard my god.

And even if the date is early, why would they not be reps anymore? There was never a replacement

These positions are never vacant.

By your own standards the PA election can't be certified and this is all irrelevant
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
Judges are under no obligation to give the remedy lawyers want

They do not have to throw out those votes

THey only need rule the changes to mail in voting unconstitutional, which it clearly was. The remedy is within their discretion

Don't know how much clearer I can make this
This is like "Fruit of the poison tree". If a law is invalid, all acts occurring under that law are invalid.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,472
Reaction score
23,346
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
From what I read of the lower court decision that's not possible without doing some very convoluted twisting of things. Such as concluding that everybody who voted under the unconstitutional mail-in ballot provision, would have all voted in-person had that provision not been available to them, and therefore those votes should be treated as if they were done in-person.

I know that's a complete fallacy, but it's the only one that would save the election.
Screen Shot 2020-11-28 at 1.20.20 PM.png


En7WoOOXMAkVoVK.png


En7W-e3W8AMv_Ji.png


Screen Shot 2020-11-28 at 1.18.39 PM.png
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,062
Points
1,590
Lawyer talking about the case, live...

 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
Judges are under no obligation to give the remedy lawyers want

They do not have to throw out those votes

THey only need rule the changes to mail in voting unconstitutional, which it clearly was. The remedy is within their discretion

Don't know how much clearer I can make this
This is like "Fruit of the poison tree". If a law is invalid, all acts occurring under that law are invalid.
The judge is under no obligation to do that

Just like they ruled Obama's DACA for dreamers illegal, but didn't revoke protections. Because judges have to take in more than waht is and is not legal when considering a remedy. Which rarely have specific legal prescription under law
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
Pa Constitution


§ 3. Terms of members.

Senators shall be elected for the term of four years and Representatives for the term of two years.
Yea even year increments, what day were they sworn in genius? lol

For what you're saying to be true the term would have to be 3 years 11 months, 1 year 11 months.

Get off the internet retard my god.

And even if the date is early, why would they not be reps anymore? There was never a replacement

These positions are never vacant.

By your own standards the PA election can't be certified and this is all irrelevant
I believe they chose the terms of office to begin on December 1st of the year of election. Which makes their last day November 30th.

They can't extend their terms, because their constitution specifies exactly how long their terms are. And once a term expires (take Trump/Pence as an example) even if no one is picked to replace them, they're still out.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top