God bless Texas

[CptTrips]

No. Not right. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction in how sovereign States determine there method of voting. 21 States have used mail in voting for years prior to this 2020 election.
Texas had no standing in their objection as to how another State manages it's voting procedures.

Maybe California should start suing Texas because they don't like their gun laws.


Trump-tards never think anything through past one step. 


 

[hitech]

No. Not right. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction in how sovereign States determine there method of voting. 21 States have used mail in voting for years prior to this 2020 election.
Texas had no standing in their objection as to how another State manages it's voting procedures.

the issue is not how the legislature wrote the laws the issue they were suing for is how the state courts overruled the legislature in conflict with the US Constitution.
Per US Constitution states don't determine their own election laws , state legislatures do.

The two are not the same thing.

HiTech

[Busher]

the issue is not how the legislature wrote the laws the issue they were suing for is how the state courts overruled the legislature in conflict with the US Constitution.
Per US Constitution states don't determine their own election laws , state legislatures do.

The two are not the same thing.

HiTech

Semantics. In either case SCOTUS saw no standing for Texas to object to Pennsylvania affairs.

[Toad]

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cannot do what they did?

Right here:

Article I
Legislative Branch
Section 4: Elections

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.      https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750

 

Where does it say in the Pennsylvania legislative laws that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cannot make a ruling on a dispute or clarify ambiguity?

It doesn't. However, there was no dispute and there was no ambiguity.

Pennsylvania Governor Wolf signed Act 77 into law in October 2019.  (https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-election-reform-bill-including-new-mail-in-voting/)

In this Act 77 the Pennsylvania LEGISLATURE, in accordance with Article I/Legislative Branch/Section 4: Elections of the US Constitution, clearly stated that "a completed absentee ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election."

The Pennsylvania Legislature passed PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77   Cl. 25
Session of 2019
No. 2019-77
SB 421
Section 1306-D.  Voting by mail-in electors.

(c)  Except as provided under 25 Pa.C.S. § 3511 (relating to receipt of voted ballot), a completed absentee ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2019&sessInd=0&act=77

There can be no dispute as to what the legislature wrote into law. "received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election" is very clear and very simple. It means what it says. Further there is no ambiguity there; it is quite specific.

The very nature of State & Federal Supreme Courts is to evaluate and clarify laws.

True. However, what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did was not an evaluation or a clarification. The PSC did not say the law was evaluated as unconstitutional. The PSC did not clarify the law; nothing can be more clear than " eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election".

What the PSC DID do was LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH. Which, as you point out in not the responsibility of the Judicial branch of the 3 branches of government. That division of power has not changed.

The PSC added a three-day extension to Act 77, Section 1306-D (c). The PSC does not legislate. Adding three days was legislation.

[Toad]

No. Not right. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction in how sovereign States determine there method of voting. 21 States have used mail in voting for years prior to this 2020 election.
Texas had no standing in their objection as to how another State manages it's voting procedures.

Trump may turn out to have standing as the injured party. That's why he's putting the Pennsylvania case before the SC once again.

I think it's very important to realize the US SC did NOT rule on whether or not the Pennsylvania SC exceeded its authority. They merely refused the case based on standing.

This may yet reach the US SC, if a plaintiff can be found that has standing. Might be Trump. We'll see I guess.

Oh, and the US Constitution Elections Clause definitively states that only the individual state Legislatures can make the rules for their elections. NOT their courts.

[Toad]

Maybe California should start suing Texas because they don't like their gun laws.

Oh, I do wish they would! The result would probably as great at Heller or McDonald!

[perdue3]

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."


This applies to Senators and Representatives, not the President. At least, that is what it says.

[Oldman731]

So that you folks can read from the primary source, I've attached a link to the PA SCt's opinion:

https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2020/133-mm-2020-1.html

Reminds me of 2000 Florida Supreme Court's opinion.  But I hope you see that the issues are not as clear-cut as some suggest.

- oldman

[hitech]

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."


This applies to Senators and Representatives, not the President. At least, that is what it says.

You are correct but same wording for electors.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of "

HiTech

[TyFoo]

Article I
Does not mention what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can and cannot do. It only says that under Article I the Congress can "overrule/ intervene" a state when their rules (paraphrasing) discriminate.

Quote from: Toad
There can be no dispute as to what the legislature wrote into law. "received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election" is very clear and very simple. It means what it says. Further there is no ambiguity there; it is quite specific.

Gov Wolf's Act 77 was further superseded by Gov Wolf extending the "indisputable" deadline by 7 days by Executive Action, which was disputed eventually requiring the Supreme Court to "Evaluate" and rule upon.

Quote from: Toad
"The PSC added a three-day extension to Act 77, Section 1306-D (c). The PSC does not legislate. Adding three days was legislation."

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not "Add" or "Legislate" three additional days. Rather they ruled upon the disputed extension and reduced the 7 day extension to 3.

Now its up to the  SCOTUS. They will either rule in the Presidents favor and find that Pennsylvania was offsides or find that the Presidents case has no merit.

[Toad]

Article i of the Constitution doesn't mention the PSC because the PSC is not empowered to prescribe the The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives. Only a state Legislature has that power.

Wolf is not part of the Legislature; therefore he cannot legislate either.

It is indeed up to the US Supreme Court. I, for one, wish the Court would take the case. I would like this issue resolved in a transparent manner.

If this situation were exactly reversed the BidenHarris team would be doing the same thing the Trump team is doing. They'd fight in the courts until the inauguration. Then their Antifa arm would probably riot/loot/burn if they didn't win.

A Reuters-Ipsos opinion poll reported that 55 percent of adults believed the 2020 election was “legitimate and accurate”. That's not a good thing for this country's future elections.

[Eagler]

A Reuters-Ipsos opinion poll reported that 55 percent of adults believed the 2020 election was “legitimate and accurate”. That's not a good thing for this country's future elections.

A poll? what is that?

Who believes one those these days?

If you put the election polling correction factor in here it is probably closer to 30% think it was legit

Eagler

[Shuffler]

10 polls 10 different results. Polls can be manipulated with ease. They are not man on the street polls anymore.

[Eagler]

Family member owned a marketing research company

You can provide whatever results someone is seeking very easily

Polling is a joke and those that take any of them as truth are naive.

Eagler

[Toad]