- Aug 16, 2009
- Reaction score
- Adjuntas, PR , USA
meaner geneSince 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.
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