PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
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.
If that's true, then how the hell do you ever certify elections that take more than a couple weeks?

IT doesn't make any sense

Who came up with this system? Why are you swearing in your reps a month early?

If what you're saying is true, then PA has no one to certify the electors and the election is pointless now.....? That can't be how this works

Some one in PA must have realized this was sooner or later going to happen as a swing state and they'd need more time.

If the date is December 1st and they can't certify elections after that.....Then the new republcians will? I guess once the non federal votes are sorted out.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
Lawyer talking about the case, live...

Apparently PA has a law that laws can only be challenged for unconstitutionality within 180 days of their enactment.

Essentially saying the challenge was brought too late.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,846
Reaction score
6,508
Points
265
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?
Terms for their entire House of Representatives ends Monday. Like the US congress, the entire body is up for election every year.

If you guys declare the election null, then there is no legislature.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,472
Reaction score
23,347
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
If that's true, then how the hell do you ever certify elections that take more than a couple weeks?

IT doesn't make any sense

Who came up with this system? Why are you swearing in your reps a month early?

If what you're saying is true, then PA has no one to certify the electors and the election is pointless now.....? That can't be how this works

Some one in PA must have realized this was sooner or later going to happen as a swing state and they'd need more time.

If the date is December 1st and they can't certify elections after that.....Then the new republcians will? I guess once the non federal votes are sorted out.
This guy says the same thing

Screen Shot 2020-11-28 at 1.32.45 PM.png


 

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?
Terms for their entire House of Representatives ends Monday. Like the US congress, the entire body is up for election every year.

If you guys declare the election null, then there is no legislature.
A) I'm in independent, nice try tho, "you guys" lol fuck off

B) That's not how this works, the term being over and being sworn in are two different things. The term being over doesn't mean they're not reps anymore. The date for swearing in new people....Might. Terms were originally very short they have expanded through teh centuries

Unclear if there is no replacement if they even lose their positions under PA law

Considering they seem to be swearing in people a month earlier than the rest of us I'm gonna hope they have some idea of how this is going to work.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
If that's true, then how the hell do you ever certify elections that take more than a couple weeks?

IT doesn't make any sense

Who came up with this system? Why are you swearing in your reps a month early?

If what you're saying is true, then PA has no one to certify the electors and the election is pointless now.....? That can't be how this works

Some one in PA must have realized this was sooner or later going to happen as a swing state and they'd need more time.

If the date is December 1st and they can't certify elections after that.....Then the new republcians will? I guess once the non federal votes are sorted out.
This guy says the same thing

View attachment 422607

But if they don't certify election results at teh state level none of those reps can take office and be sworn in?

So are we sure the previous term loses their position if no one new is sworn in?

The election isn't over so I don't see how the law saying it should be really means anything
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,846
Reaction score
6,508
Points
265
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?
Terms for their entire House of Representatives ends Monday. Like the US congress, the entire body is up for election every year.

If you guys declare the election null, then there is no legislature.
A) I'm in independent, nice try tho, "you guys" lol fuck off

B) That's not how this works, the term being over and being sworn in are two different things. The term being over doesn't mean they're not reps anymore. The date for swearing in new people....Might. Terms were originally very short they have expanded through teh centuries

Unclear if there is no replacement if they even lose their positions under PA law

Considering they seem to be swearing in people a month earlier than the rest of us I'm gonna hope they have some idea of how this is going to work.
When your term is over, your term is over. You’re no longer a rep after your term is up.
 

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?
Terms for their entire House of Representatives ends Monday. Like the US congress, the entire body is up for election every year.

If you guys declare the election null, then there is no legislature.
A) I'm in independent, nice try tho, "you guys" lol fuck off

B) That's not how this works, the term being over and being sworn in are two different things. The term being over doesn't mean they're not reps anymore. The date for swearing in new people....Might. Terms were originally very short they have expanded through teh centuries

Unclear if there is no replacement if they even lose their positions under PA law

Considering they seem to be swearing in people a month earlier than the rest of us I'm gonna hope they have some idea of how this is going to work.
When your term is over, your term is over. You’re no longer a rep after your term is up.
What case law do you have where an election wasn't finished but the reps term was over/

Does such case law exist?

We're in uncharted territory here. You're talking with a lot of confidence that has no real backing.

Can PA go without a full legislature indefinitely? That's the question the court will have to answer
 

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
2,289
Points
290
Location
State 48
it's a pretty cut and dry legal issue....

They put their mail in voting rules in the constitution.
From what I read it was the state's election code that changed, not the constitution itself. I further read that appeals to changes must be made within 180 days of the change, not over a year later. But I'm not claiming to be any legal expert, just offering my opinion that the thread's premise that 'PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional' is bogus and if I'm wrong will have no complaint at all with whatever the court decides.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
it's a pretty cut and dry legal issue....

They put their mail in voting rules in the constitution.
From what I read it was the state's election code that changed, not the constitution itself. I further read that appeals to changes must be made within 180 days of the change, not over a year later. But I'm not claiming to be any legal expert, just offering my opinion that the thread's premise that 'PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional' is bogus and if I'm wrong will have no complaint at all with whatever the court decides.
Yea they changed the election code in direct contradiction with their constitution

If they wanted to change the rules on absentee/mail in voting, they would need to make an amendment to their constitution

Which they did not do.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
Breaking: It appears the argument being brought to the PA supreme court is over whether or not the absentee ballot requirement in their constitution is "limiting" or "controlling"

Since it states:
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


The fact that it says "shall" and not "shall only" means it does not limit the election laws the legislature can enact.

The absentee ballot law enacted under section 1301 was not modified, but instead a new catatory of ballots "mail-in" was created under 1301-d


VOTING BY QUALIFIED MAIL-IN ELECTORS

Section 1301-D. Qualified mail-in electors.

(a) General rule.--The following individuals shall be entitled to vote by an official mail-in ballot in any primary or election held in this Commonwealth in the manner provided under this article:

(1) Any qualified elector who is not eligible to be a qualified absentee elector under Article XIII.

(2) (Reserved).

(b) Construction.--The term "qualified mail-in elector" shall not be construed to include a person not otherwise qualified as a qualified elector in accordance with the definition in section 102(t).


This means everything I said before is to be ignored. The law considered unconstitutional, is constitutional.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
Yea they changed the election code in direct contradiction with their constitution

If they wanted to change the rules on absentee/mail in voting, they would need to make an amendment to their constitution

Which they did not do.
See my preceding post. I looked up the law in question, and discovered that the legislature did not "change" the absentee ballot rules section 1301 (which would have been unconstitutional) but instead created a new category of ballots called "mail-in" ballots (under section 1301-d)

The constitution doesn't limit additions to the election law. I believe a similar argument is involved in the 3 day extension to receive ballots rests on these same argument.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
45,001
Reaction score
5,677
Points
1,870
The case has been somewhat under the radar,
Because the results are already certified, and it wont stop the electors from voting. But it is keeping you goobers occupied, so it has some value.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
The case has been somewhat under the radar,
Because the results are already certified, and it wont stop the electors from voting. But it is keeping you goobers occupied, so it has some value.
Actually based on the appeal of the case to the PA Supreme court, and the reversal of the original injunction, which was granted under a "no harm" theory.

The class of electors eligible under the "absentee ballot" section 1301 are completely different from those eligible under the "mail-in ballot" section 1301-d.

As these two provisions don't overlap, they exist completely independently of each other. And only the absentee ballot law is dependent on the PA constitution
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,245
Reaction score
13,354
Points
2,210
Clearly the PA Constitution was violated. Sad that liberal morons probably just got all those votes tossed, but what else can be done?
Great, since it's so clear to you, show where in their constitution this purported violation occurred...

 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
45,001
Reaction score
5,677
Points
1,870
The case has been somewhat under the radar,
Because the results are already certified, and it wont stop the electors from voting. But it is keeping you goobers occupied, so it has some value.
Actually based on the appeal of the case to the PA Supreme court, and the reversal of the original injunction, which was granted under a "no harm" theory.

The class of electors eligible under the "absentee ballot" section 1301 are completely different from those eligible under the "mail-in ballot" section 1301-d.

As these two provisions don't overlap, they exist completely independently of each other. And only the absentee ballot law is dependent on the PA constitution
Neat! So the electors will vote anyway, you guys enjoy the cryfest.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
Yea they changed the election code in direct contradiction with their constitution

If they wanted to change the rules on absentee/mail in voting, they would need to make an amendment to their constitution

Which they did not do.
See my preceding post. I looked up the law in question, and discovered that the legislature did not "change" the absentee ballot rules section 1301 (which would have been unconstitutional) but instead created a new category of ballots called "mail-in" ballots (under section 1301-d)

The constitution doesn't limit additions to the election law. I believe a similar argument is involved in the 3 day extension to receive ballots rests on these same argument.

"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."

Court is going to have a hard time pretending this did not circumvent the constitutionally prescribed rules.

They specifically invoke illness or physical disability which would prevent you from attending a polling place.

They will rule it unconstitutional but do nothing about it, that is the rational play for the court. They shift all blame to others. Republicans will go nuts if they don't, and democrats will go nuts if they take some drastic action on the election. Best path forwards is just to do as I laid out politically. Legally they can do whatever the fuck they want we are in uncharted territory, but politically there is only really one outcome that makes any sense for the PA courts.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,472
Reaction score
23,347
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
Yea they changed the election code in direct contradiction with their constitution

If they wanted to change the rules on absentee/mail in voting, they would need to make an amendment to their constitution

Which they did not do.
See my preceding post. I looked up the law in question, and discovered that the legislature did not "change" the absentee ballot rules section 1301 (which would have been unconstitutional) but instead created a new category of ballots called "mail-in" ballots (under section 1301-d)

The constitution doesn't limit additions to the election law. I believe a similar argument is involved in the 3 day extension to receive ballots rests on these same argument.

"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."

Court is going to have a hard time pretending this did not circumvent the constitutionally prescribed rules.

They specifically invoke illness or physical disability which would prevent you from attending a polling place.

They will rule it unconstitutional but do nothing about it, that is the rational play for the court. They shift all blame to others. Republicans will go nuts if they don't, and democrats will go nuts if they take some drastic action on the election. Best path forwards is just to do as I laid out politically. Legally they can do whatever the fuck they want we are in uncharted territory, but the plain text meaning is pretty clear
What if the illness is prevention of a pandemic?

Not saying it is. Just wondering.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
729
Points
140
Yea they changed the election code in direct contradiction with their constitution

If they wanted to change the rules on absentee/mail in voting, they would need to make an amendment to their constitution

Which they did not do.
See my preceding post. I looked up the law in question, and discovered that the legislature did not "change" the absentee ballot rules section 1301 (which would have been unconstitutional) but instead created a new category of ballots called "mail-in" ballots (under section 1301-d)

The constitution doesn't limit additions to the election law. I believe a similar argument is involved in the 3 day extension to receive ballots rests on these same argument.

"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."

Court is going to have a hard time pretending this did not circumvent the constitutionally prescribed rules.

They specifically invoke illness or physical disability which would prevent you from attending a polling place.

They will rule it unconstitutional but do nothing about it, that is the rational play for the court. They shift all blame to others. Republicans will go nuts if they don't, and democrats will go nuts if they take some drastic action on the election. Best path forwards is just to do as I laid out politically. Legally they can do whatever the fuck they want we are in uncharted territory, but the plain text meaning is pretty clear
What if the illness is prevention of a pandemic?

Not saying it is. Just wondering.
That will be the obvious argument

But I don't think that will work considering this is not hte spanish flu and the mortality rate is .00001 for most people

By that standard every flu season could end in an "emergency". You have to draw the line between normal years and this one. Doubling a very small number of deaths in the unhealthy isn't going to do it. There is no first principles line here.

Humans always have some risk of contracting diseases from social gatherings

Once you start having to set legal precedent our reaction to this "pandemic" (which happen all the time) becomes clearly absurd.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,245
Reaction score
13,354
Points
2,210
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.
He was not ignored. Pennsylvania not only separated ballots arriving after election day, they didn't even count them...


Biden: 3,459,923
Trump: 3,378,263

These vote totals do not include any votes from mail ballots received between 8 p.m. on election day and 5 p.m. the following Friday.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top