This will go to the USSC

[Couchpotato]

The implication here, the reason that Trump people get so excited about this, is that by declaring the law unconstitutional, they can declare the 2020 election null and void.

And that is sad, desperate and kind of stupid.

The only people seemly making that implication don’t seem to be fans of Trump

 

[jc456]

I got ya sarah...

Scratch much?

 

[colfax_m]

The only people seemly making that implication don’t seem to be fans of Trump

It was the purpose of a lawsuit filed shortly after the election. Maybe they gave up on that one.

The argument here is why it would go to SCOTUS. There’s no reason it would. No federal constitutional question.

 

[Couchpotato]

It was the purpose of a lawsuit filed shortly after the election. Maybe they gave up on that one.

The argument here is why it would go to SCOTUS. There’s no reason it would. No federal constitutional question.

I could be wrong but I don’t think those law suits were connected if we are thinking of the same lawsuits.

As far as this suit going to the SCOTUS I would tend to agree with you but I’m not a legal scholar by any stretch. That said I’m not sure how the PA SC an fine this law Constitutional by my reading. I also don’t understand why the Legislature didn’t just amend the PAC.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Is the PS supreme court still dominated by Nazis?

5-2 Democrats to Republicans.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, SCOTUS ruled they were going against the US Constitution. They did not rule that the FL SC was incorrect in their interpretation of the FL Constitution.

You are the stupidest ex-Marine I have ever met. I fully explained, with a link proving you were wrong, but you apparently cannot read.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are the stupidest ex-Marine I have ever met. I fully explained, with a link proving you were wrong, but you apparently cannot read.

Your link did not prove me wrong, your link proved that SCOTUS ruled based upon the US Constitution. They never once told the FLSC they were wrong about their own Constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well it says very specifically the reason's allowed for absentee voting. Unless you are going to parse the terms mail in and absentee which some are doing but if they are the same then the law for sure violates the Constitution. Look they had the votes to amend the Constitution they should have just done that.

No, it does not. It says, directly, what people are REQUIRED to be provided absentee ballots. They are providing them to everyone meaning those requirements are filled.

 

[FA_Q2]

Three judges in PA disagree with you.

And when the PA supreme court upholds the law, and you know they will, you are going to change your mind?

I have already pulled out all of the relevant information and no one anywhere, even the ruling this thread is focused on, has provide one single point where the law disagrees with the constitution on any level whatsoever.

To be quite frank, if you asked last month I would have likely said I thought the law was unconstitutional. Then I read the law itself and realized I was wrong. Try actually going through it with an open mind.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, it does not. It says, directly, what people are REQUIRED to be provided absentee ballots. They are providing them to everyone meaning those requirements are filled.

Some people don't understand the nuance of the difference between:

#1 Absentee voting must include as a minimum categories X, Y, and Z and that the legislature can expand beyond the minimum for other mail-in voting, and

#2 All mail-in is limited to only X, Y, and Z.

The PASC will examine is Section 14 a limiting list or a minimum list and under Section 4 can the legislature expand access as long as the State Constitutional minimums are met.

WW

 

[FA_Q2]

Some people don't understand the nuance of the difference between:

#1 Absentee voting must include as a minimum categories X, Y, and Z and that the legislature can expand beyond the minimum for other mail-in voting, and

#2 All mail-in is limited to only X, Y, and Z.

The PASC will examine is Section 14 a limiting list or a minimum list and under Section 4 can the legislature expand access as long as the State Constitutional minimums are met.

WW

I do not even think that is in question in the courts. The ruling did not specify that as where it violated the PA Constitution. Instead, they referenced Ch 7 Sec 1 which is simply the qualifications you must meet to be eligible to vote. It is why I keep saying this seems like an activist ruling as I cannot find anything in Act 77 that violates those strictures. It does give deadlines for when you have to register but section 1 only outlines requirements, not when or how those have to be presented in order to register. Unless I missed some other reasoning the judge pointed to.

I mean, how can they get any more clear:

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, because their duties,
occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
the occurrence of any election, 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.

It is directly spelled out that they can provide ballots for 2020 at the very least and that not one single word in the section, not one, establishes this is a limiting paragraph rather than what it actually is, a burden placed on the legislators they must fill.

The legislators SHALL make the law and electors MAY mail in the ballot.

 

[Couchpotato]

And when the PA supreme court upholds the law, and you know they will, you are going to change your mind?

I have already pulled out all of the relevant information and no one anywhere, even the ruling this thread is focused on, has provide one single point where the law disagrees with the constitution on any level whatsoever.

To be quite frank, if you asked last month I would have likely said I thought the law was unconstitutional. Then I read the law itself and realized I was wrong. Try actually going through it with an open mind.

Some people don't understand the nuance of the difference between:

#1 Absentee voting must include as a minimum categories X, Y, and Z and that the legislature can expand beyond the minimum for other mail-in voting, and

#2 All mail-in is limited to only X, Y, and Z.

The PASC will examine is Section 14 a limiting list or a minimum list and under Section 4 can the legislature expand access as long as the State Constitutional minimums are met.

WW

If you want to parse the words and act like mail in voting isn't the same thing as absentee voting have at it. But it is, and if you are actually honest with yourself you know that. Absentee voting is just I mailed in my ballot because I wasn't physically able to go to the polls because I was not in the county, too sick, disabled (whatever the list said). Mail in voting is just I mailed in my vote because I'm too lazy or can't be bothered to physically go to the poll. What's stupid is they didn't just change the Constitution as they had the votes to do it. So sure, the court might uphold this law based on political expedience and some BS word usage but it's dumb to circumvent the law when you can just change it. Had they done the minimal amount of extra work to do it a) there would be no lawsuit, b) when a group that thinks it's a bad idea gets power they can't as easily change it back.

 

[Uncensored2008]

5-2 Democrats to Republicans.

So, still Nazi ruled!

 

[FA_Q2]

If you want to parse the words and act like mail in voting isn't the same thing as absentee voting have at it. But it is, and if you are actually honest with yourself you know that. Absentee voting is just I mailed in my ballot because I wasn't physically able to go to the polls because I was not in the county, too sick, disabled (whatever the list said). Mail in voting is just I mailed in my vote because I'm too lazy or can't be bothered to physically go to the poll. What's stupid is they didn't just change the Constitution as they had the votes to do it. So sure, the court might uphold this law based on political expedience and some BS word usage but it's dumb to circumvent the law when you can just change it. Had they done the minimal amount of extra work to do it a) there would be no lawsuit, b) when a group that thinks it's a bad idea gets power they can't as easily change it back.

Where in the text is mail in voting limited to the list given?

You keep asserting that it is a limitation on mail in or absentee voting. Actually point to the text that makes it so. The SPECIFIC text.

 

[Couchpotato]

Where in the text is mail in voting limited to the list given?

You keep asserting that it is a limitation on mail in or absentee voting. Actually point to the text that makes it so. The SPECIFIC text.

§ 14. Absentee voting.
(a) 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, because their duties,
occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
the occurrence of any election, 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.
(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a
city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar
general purpose unit of government which may be created by the
General Assembly.
(Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)

1967 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
former section 19 to present section 14.
1957 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
14 (formerly section 19).

Not sure where you get confused but if you cant follow this pretty clear language I cant help you.

You'll notice it says BECAUSE and then lists a reason or series of reasons for absentee voting. It doesnt then say or any other excuse the individual or Legislature comes up with, or that you dont have to have a reason which is what 77 says.

 

[BlindBoo]

While I know this is shock to those of the fascist left, the courts are NOT actually a "super legislature" the way the Reich thinks they are.

Of course the Neo-GOP does not champion the rule of law and established precedent if it goes against the dictates of their Exalted Ones' agenda. They are willing to use MAGAMOB violence and intimidation to try and destroy all the democratic institution as well as the instruments of justice, of our once united Republic.

 

[FA_Q2]

§ 14. Absentee voting.
(a) 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, because their duties,
occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
the occurrence of any election, 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.
(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a
city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar
general purpose unit of government which may be created by the
General Assembly.
(Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)

1967 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
former section 19 to present section 14.
1957 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
14 (formerly section 19).

Not sure where you get confused but if you cant follow this pretty clear language I cant help you.

You'll notice it says BECAUSE and then lists a reason or series of reasons for absentee voting. It doesnt then say or any other excuse the individual or Legislature comes up with, or that you dont have to have a reason which is what 77 says.

It is CLEAR.

It lists reasons the legislators MUST PROVIDE AN ABSETEE BALLOT.

Now, where is the language, anywhere, that says that list is ALL INCLUSIVE. Point to one passage that states the legislators may not mail a ballot to someone not on that list. The constitution gives them the power to determine how elections are run. Nowhere are limitations on mail in ballots outlined. The legislators were specifically given a power and you want to claim that specific outlined power is limited to in person voting excepting under specific circumstance.

That language does not exist. It is why I asked for the specific text that says so. You cant point to such a passage because you are inserting it on your own so you just blanked the entire passage again.

For the third time, that list is a set of requirements that the legislative body must fulfill. Nowhere is any limitation placed that makes this an all inclusive list. This is why no judge has cited that as the passage Act 77 violates, it clearly does not.

 

[22lcidw]

Of course the Neo-GOP does not champion the rule of law and established precedent if it goes against the dictates of their Exalted Ones' agenda. They are willing to use MAGAMOB violence and intimidation to try and destroy all the democratic institution as well as the instruments of justice, of our once united Republic.

I love the so-called Democratic Voting crap you shove that is turning us into a communist nation. You represent the enemy.

 

[BlindBoo]

§ 14. Absentee voting.
(a) 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, because their duties,
occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
the occurrence of any election, 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.
(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a
city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar
general purpose unit of government which may be created by the
General Assembly.
(Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)

1967 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
former section 19 to present section 14.
1957 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
14 (formerly section 19).

Not sure where you get confused but if you cant follow this pretty clear language I cant help you.

You'll notice it says BECAUSE and then lists a reason or series of reasons for absentee voting. It doesnt then say or any other excuse the individual or Legislature comes up with, or that you dont have to have a reason which is what 77 says.

That amendment doesn't limit the legislature to only those reasons.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course the Neo-GOP does not champion the rule of law and established precedent if it goes against the dictates of their Exalted Ones' agenda. They are willing to use MAGAMOB violence and intimidation to try and destroy all the democratic institution as well as the instruments of justice, of our once united Republic.

Rule of law, Herr Comrade?

Law is codified as opposed the edicts of unelected dictators.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

When you assault the Constitution, you are undermining the rule of law. But democrats want dictators, not laws.