PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

[meaner gene]

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.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania - The Official Website of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

www.legis.state.pa.us

"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.

As I said, they didn't change the absentee ballot rules, which are constitutionally defined.

They added a new election law for "mail-in ballots" (note a different name) for people not absent, and not ill.

They can do that.

 

[Faun]

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?

 

[Juicin]

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.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania - The Official Website of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

www.legis.state.pa.us

"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.

As I said, they didn't change the absentee ballot rules, which are constitutionally defined.

They added a new election law for "mail-in ballots" (note a different name) for people not absent, and not ill.

They can do that.

Yes they did

Just relabeling it doesn't' change the legal view of the matter

Those are absentee ballots mailed out en masse

The court will not rule this way, again because it's politically untenable in a republican state. They are walking a tight rope. Their ruling won't even change anything they will leave this up to the legislature. Why would they want to die on the mail in voting hill that is only relevant for this year and is just a giant political mess?

"this isn't a law it's a legally binding order that doesn't require governor approval" lol, that doesn't work and neither does relabeling absentee ballots as something else

 

[Toro]

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.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania - The Official Website of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

www.legis.state.pa.us

"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 **** 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.

Not so sure the courts would look at COVID as benignly as you do.

They haven’t been having civil trials here since March as I understand it.

But I’m not in PA

 

[meaner gene]

What if the illness is prevention of a pandemic?

Not saying it is. Just wondering.

I thought of that. But that would be changing the absentee ballot section of their election law. Instead they just added a completely new section to the law called "mail-in ballots", that has nothing to do with the absentee ballots.

 

[Juicin]

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.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania - The Official Website of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

www.legis.state.pa.us

"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 **** 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.

Not so sure the courts would look at COVID as benignly as you do.

They haven’t been having civil trials here since March as I understand it.

But I’m not in PA

It's a numbers question

They have to put numbers to things

And as soon as you do that.....They will view it as benignly. Because that's the empiracal reality....Excess deaths among seniors aren't even up over last year. A lot of what we're calling corona deaths are just other things while they also happened to have corona.

They have to set some first principles line if they want to support these emergency orders. The governor merely invoking the word emergency is not enough. You have to pair that with some actual threat.

Judges love to defer but these policies are so arbitrary they won't be able to stop themselves from saying no. If we had some uniform national system and people actually stuck to the metrics laid out in them maybe the courts would look more kindly on this crap because you set standards. But that's not how this has worked. Abritrary limits on basic civil rights are clearly unconstitutional

 

[meaner gene]

As I said, they didn't change the absentee ballot rules, which are constitutionally defined.

They added a new election law for "mail-in ballots" (note a different name) for people not absent, and not ill.

They can do that.

Yes they did

Just relabeling it doesn't' change the legal view of the matter

Those are absentee ballots mailed out en masse

The court will not rule this way, again because it's politically untenable in a republican state. They are walking a tight rope. Their ruling won't even change anything they will leave this up to the legislature. Why would they want to die on the mail in voting hill that is only relevant for this year and is just a giant political mess?

"this isn't a law it's a legally binding order that doesn't require governor approval" lol, that doesn't work and neither does relabeling absentee ballots as something else

Let me put it in a way you can understand.
They have motor vehicle laws for cars, they have motorvehicle laws for trucks.
Trucks require a CDL license, while cars do not.
They can set different rules for different vehicles. Even if they both travel the same roads.

 

[Juicin]

As I said, they didn't change the absentee ballot rules, which are constitutionally defined.

They added a new election law for "mail-in ballots" (note a different name) for people not absent, and not ill.

They can do that.

Yes they did

Just relabeling it doesn't' change the legal view of the matter

Those are absentee ballots mailed out en masse

The court will not rule this way, again because it's politically untenable in a republican state. They are walking a tight rope. Their ruling won't even change anything they will leave this up to the legislature. Why would they want to die on the mail in voting hill that is only relevant for this year and is just a giant political mess?

"this isn't a law it's a legally binding order that doesn't require governor approval" lol, that doesn't work and neither does relabeling absentee ballots as something else

Let me put it in a way you can understand.
They have motor vehicle laws for cars, they have motorvehicle laws for trucks.
Trucks require a CDL license, while cars do not.
They can set different rules for different vehicles. Even if they both travel the same roads.

Yea but they don't define those things in the constitution

Laws can overwrite other laws, that analogy doesn't work at all. Mine does because it involves constitutional requirements of exective sign off. If it wasn't in the constution and it was just law then yea lawmakers can make all sorts of contradictory or arbitrary moves. The same force applies to the new law as the old one

Laws cannot override constitutional provisions

If laws are in conflict you figure it out. If a constitutional provision and a law in in conflict you get rid of the unconstitutional law

Legislatures can redefine most* laws they passed at will with exectutive sign off in as far as I'm aware all 50 states. Not true for the constitutionally relevant topics

 

[meaner gene]

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.

Not so sure the courts would look at COVID as benignly as you do.

They haven’t been having civil trials here since March as I understand it.

But I’m not in PA

The courts have taken it seriously, although it's not universal. They have changed legal definitions and requirements when it comes to the "speedy" trial laws.

 

[Juicin]

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.

Not so sure the courts would look at COVID as benignly as you do.

They haven’t been having civil trials here since March as I understand it.

But I’m not in PA

The courts have taken it seriously, although it's not universal. They have changed legal definitions and requirements when it comes to the "speedy" trial laws.

They took it seriously when lawyers could bring out experts who projected millions of american deaths....Every minute those get more ridiculous and the actual empirical reality of the threat lowers.

The more uncertainty there is, the more likely they are to accept emergency measures.

Each minute that passes reduces the legal backing of these orders.

No judge was going to stop NY from enacting these orders when it was unclear how many NYers would die if they didn't. Now its' clear. Not many, if anything NY policy increased deaths by not protecting nursing homes.

 

[meaner gene]

Yea but they don't define those things in the constitution

Laws can overwrite other laws, that analogy doesn't work at all. Mine does because it involves constitutional requirements of exective sign off. If it wasn't in the constution and it was just law then yea lawmakers can make all sorts of contradictory or arbitrary moves. The same force applies to the new law as the old one

CDL licensing of trucks is a federal requirement. Which is authoritative like the constitution. And must be followed.
Regular divers licenses of cars don't have to follow those federal requirements.

Absentee ballots have to adhere to the PA constitution

Mail-in ballots aren't in the constitution, hence are not controlled by it. Just like how car licenses aren't controlled by CDL.

 

[Juicin]

Yea but they don't define those things in the constitution

Laws can overwrite other laws, that analogy doesn't work at all. Mine does because it involves constitutional requirements of exective sign off. If it wasn't in the constution and it was just law then yea lawmakers can make all sorts of contradictory or arbitrary moves. The same force applies to the new law as the old one

CDL licensing of trucks is a federal requirement. Which is authoritative like the constitution. And must be followed.
Regular divers licenses of cars don't have to follow those federal requirements.

Absentee ballots have to adhere to the PA constitution

Mail-in ballots aren't in the constitution, hence are not controlled by it. Just like how car licenses aren't controlled by CDL.

No it's not....

Conflating federal law and state constitution is absurd.

Again federal law was passed by the federal legislature, and be changed at will by that body

If it was in the constitution that would not be true.

Your analogy doesn't work, and basically all election law is decided by teh states per the federal constitution

The analogy is my original one. "we don't need executive approval because this is not a normal bill, we're calling it something else" does not work

Neither does redefining absentee ballots as something else to circumvent the constitution. Simply choosing another label for something to avoid constitutional requirements isn't going to fly in any court in the land.

 

[Faun]

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.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania - The Official Website of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

www.legis.state.pa.us

"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.

As I said, they didn't change the absentee ballot rules, which are constitutionally defined.

They added a new election law for "mail-in ballots" (note a different name) for people not absent, and not ill.

They can do that.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.

 

[meaner gene]

Conflating federal law and state constitution is absurd.

Both are examples of supremacy. And I showed that supremacy only holds in cases where the superior law controls. Where that law is silent, the inferior law is free to act.

As I said over and over, the PA legislature did not change the absentee ballot law (section 1301)

Instead they made a completely different mail-in ballot law (section 1301-d) that had nothing to do with the absentee ballots.

One covers people absent, or unable to go to the polls due to illness, business etc. The other covers people present, but not wishing to vote in person.

Two independent laws.

 

[meaner gene]

As I said, they didn't change the absentee ballot rules, which are constitutionally defined.

They added a new election law for "mail-in ballots" (note a different name) for people not absent, and not ill.

They can do that.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.

Thank you for nailing it.

 

[Juicin]

Conflating federal law and state constitution is absurd.

Both are examples of supremacy. And I showed that supremacy only holds in cases where the superior law controls. Where that law is silent, the inferior law is free to act.

As I said over and over, the PA legislature did not change the absentee ballot law (section 1301)

Instead they made a completely different mail-in ballot law (section 1301-d) that had nothing to do with the absentee ballots.

One covers people absent, or unable to go to the polls due to illness, business etc. The other covers people present, but not wishing to vote in person.

Two independent laws.

Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

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.

Actually, what you can read on page 12 of the OP's pdf link is the following [emphasis is not mine; it is the court's ruling]...

"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...."

They stated this while denying the Respondents' (Democrats') claims that delaying certification would result in disenfranchisement of voters.

 

[Faun]

Conflating federal law and state constitution is absurd.

Both are examples of supremacy. And I showed that supremacy only holds in cases where the superior law controls. Where that law is silent, the inferior law is free to act.

As I said over and over, the PA legislature did not change the absentee ballot law (section 1301)

Instead they made a completely different mail-in ballot law (section 1301-d) that had nothing to do with the absentee ballots.

One covers people absent, or unable to go to the polls due to illness, business etc. The other covers people present, but not wishing to vote in person.

Two independent laws.

Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.

They created a new type of ballot, just as many states have done. Even worse for your nonsense, a state can't pass a law allowing their electorate to vote in a particular manner, then after the election, disenfranchise millions of voters who voted with such state-mandated procedures, saying, oops, we shouldn't have done that. Courts defend voters and no court is going to allow that.

 

[Juicin]

Conflating federal law and state constitution is absurd.

Both are examples of supremacy. And I showed that supremacy only holds in cases where the superior law controls. Where that law is silent, the inferior law is free to act.

As I said over and over, the PA legislature did not change the absentee ballot law (section 1301)

Instead they made a completely different mail-in ballot law (section 1301-d) that had nothing to do with the absentee ballots.

One covers people absent, or unable to go to the polls due to illness, business etc. The other covers people present, but not wishing to vote in person.

Two independent laws.

Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.

They created a new type of ballot, just as many states have done. Even worse for your nonsense, a state can't pass a law allowing their electorate to vote in a particular manner, then after the election, disenfranchise millions of voters saying, oops, we shouldn't have done that. Courts defend voters and no court is going to allow that.

again you can't just do that

just like i can't rename laws to humdingers

There is no line there.

PA has an obviously relevant constitutional provision clearly preventing mass* mail in ballots from existing.

 

[meaner gene]

Why are you avoiding my analogy and continuing to talk about "supremacy" when there is no federally relevant law here? Dipshit

My god

Terrible analogy, this is why they didn't allow you in the advanced class when you were a boy.

You've just thrown out all constitutional provisions, all we need to do is start relabeling things and it's all moot. lol

"we're now calling laws humdingers and all relevant constitutional provisions around law making are silent on the issue of humdingers so we'll do what we want"

No

Under PA law those are clearly absentee ballots, other states that might not be true. But the PA constitution is obscenely clear ont his issue.

Faun already answered that point.

(z.6) The words "qualified mail-in elector" shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.

Since mail-in voters are not absentee voters