HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » A group of Pennsylvania R...

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:14 PM

A group of Pennsylvania Republicans are suing to try to invalidate millions of mail-in ballots and

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Business Insider (by way of MSN News)

Full title: A group of Pennsylvania Republicans are suing to try to invalidate millions of mail-in ballots and stop the state from certifying the election results

~ A group of Pennsylvania Republicans are seeking to toss out a GOP-backed voting reform bill that passed in October 2019.
~ Their lawsuit seeks to invalidate millions of mail-in ballots cast in the 2020 presidential election.
~ The lawsuit, filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, alleges that Act 77, which allowed for no excuse mail-in voting, should be deemed "unconstitutional."
~ Some 2.6 million voters in Pennsylvania cast mail-in ballots in the 2020 election.

A group of Pennsylvania Republicans, led by US Representative Mike Kelly and 2020 congressional candidate Sean Parnell, are suing Gov. Tom Wolf, the GOP-controlled General Assembly, and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, seeking to toss out a major voting reform bill that passed last year and thus invalidate millions of mail-in ballots cast in the 2020 presidential election.

The lawsuit, filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (this morning), alleges that Act 77, which was signed into law in October 2019 and created no excuse mail-in voting and a 50-day period for voters to request and submit their ballots ballots, should be deemed "unconstitutional." The law was passed with the support of Republican majorities in the General Assembly and signed into law by Wolf, a Democrat.

The lawsuit seeks to toss out mail-in ballots and halt the certification of Pennsylvania's election results, which is set to take place on November 23. President Donald Trump's campaign has aimed to set aside the state's election results and appoint pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College to secure the state's 20 electoral votes.
~snip~
The plaintiffs argue that the act overrides legal limitations on absentee voting and insist that such an act should have been subject to a constitutional amendment.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-group-of-pennsylvania-republicans-are-suing-to-try-to-invalidate-millions-of-mail-in-ballots-and-stop-the-state-from-certifying-the-election-results/ar-BB1beTHU?ocid=DELLDHP



BTW, this is a different PA lawsuit than the one filed by the trump campaign that was just thrown out.

48 replies, 2524 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply A group of Pennsylvania Republicans are suing to try to invalidate millions of mail-in ballots and (Original post)
scarletwoman Saturday OP
Karadeniz Saturday #1
regnaD kciN Saturday #16
IsItJustMe Saturday #31
pnwmom Saturday #44
kurtcagle Saturday #2
Thekaspervote Saturday #3
BumRushDaShow Saturday #8
Cha Saturday #17
regnaD kciN Saturday #19
Major Nikon Saturday #26
BumRushDaShow Saturday #27
scarletwoman Saturday #36
BumRushDaShow Saturday #38
scarletwoman Saturday #42
BumRushDaShow Saturday #43
scarletwoman Saturday #45
BumRushDaShow Saturday #47
IsItJustMe Saturday #32
BumRushDaShow Saturday #40
scarletwoman Saturday #9
SheltieLover Saturday #4
C_U_L8R Saturday #5
livetohike Saturday #6
Solly Mack Saturday #7
scarletwoman Saturday #11
Solly Mack Saturday #21
birdographer Saturday #39
Solly Mack Saturday #41
ShazzieB Saturday #12
Solly Mack Saturday #22
brer cat Saturday #18
Solly Mack Saturday #23
ShazzieB Saturday #10
IsItJustMe Saturday #33
BumRushDaShow Saturday #13
TreasonousBastard Saturday #25
BumRushDaShow Saturday #30
apcalc Saturday #14
scarletwoman Saturday #15
PoindexterOglethorpe Saturday #20
scarletwoman Saturday #24
IsItJustMe Saturday #34
Blue Owl Saturday #28
Progressive dog Saturday #29
melm00se Saturday #35
scarletwoman Saturday #37
NBachers Saturday #46
JudyM Yesterday #48

Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:17 PM

1. You can't create election rules retroactive to the election. They think we're as stupid as they are.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karadeniz (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:37 PM

16. No, but you CAN rule things unconstitutional at any time, and they apply retroactively...

I don't know what the allegedly-unconstitutional aspects of this law are, or why they weren't challenged earlier (well, I can actually make a pretty good guess about the latter part) but, if there are grounds, it's the duty of the court to rule it such, and throw out any ballots cast in that way, even if they were cast under a good-faith assumption of constitutionality.

We shall see.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:18 PM

31. Don't see it like you do at all.

From what I have seen and what is customary is that courts and judges will go the extra mile to keep from disenfranchising voters. Voting is at the very heart of any semblance of what it means to be a democracy. They think long and hard about something so reckless. Now if they are corrupt on the other hand, who knows.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 11:02 PM

44. The law itself had a provision that any lawsuits alleging unconstitutionality had to be alleged

within 6 months of its passage last year. Not within 3 days of the election's certification.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:18 PM

2. Too late

As with so many of these lawsuits, the challenges should have come long before the election, not afterward. The Republicans are really getting desperate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:19 PM

3. I believe this case has already been dismissed

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thekaspervote (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:22 PM

8. This is a new case filed just today (Saturday) in state Court

They are idiots.

The law they are trying to invalidate actually has stipulations that if you want to declare it unconstitutional, that has to be done within 6 months of passage and this law passed almost a year ago!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:37 PM

17. Aww Shuckies.. They missed the

boat again.. That Ship SAILED!

TY for the Laws, BRDS!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:39 PM

19. Yes, but if the law is unconsititional, those stipulations are as well, and can be likewise tossed..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:54 PM

26. Even so, timeliness matters

Waiting until you don’t like the results days before the election is certified isn’t going to fly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:57 PM

27. The law stated that if there were issues with constitutionality

then those arguments needed to be made within 6 months after passage. Note that these Congress creeps filed this in STATE court, not federal court (where they have been laughed out of those).

The relevant election law was called "Act 77" -

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

AN ACT

(snip)

Section 12. Repeals are as follows:

(snip)

(2) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a challenge to or to render a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of a provision referred to in paragraph (1). The Supreme Court may take action it deems appropriate, consistent with the Supreme Court retaining jurisdiction over the matter, to find facts or to expedite a final judgment in connection with such a challenge or request for declaratory relief.

(3) An action under paragraph (2) must be commenced within 180 days of the effective date of this section.


Section 14. This act shall apply to elections held on or after April 28, 2020.

Section 15. This act shall take effect as follows:

(1) The addition of section 207 of the act shall take effect in 180 days.

(2) The amendment of section 908 of the act shall take effect in 60 days.

(3) The remainder of this act shall take effect immediately.



APPROVED--The 31st day of October, A.D. 2019.



TOM WOLF

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:53 PM

36. Thank you for posting that!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 10:02 PM

38. You are welcome!



I have been trying to get around to hunting for the text to that law.

I am still in shock that they passed it here because for several years, I have asked my (D) State Senator in his telephone Town Halls, whether the state legislature had ever considered any type of "early voting" or "mail-in" voting like other states had and he said they (GOP) would never bring it up. Well apparently last fall, they did bring it up, and I think probably targeted more for their rural voters since the urban areas like here in Philly, had quite a number of polling locations to handle the voters (we have 1703 Divisions, each covering about 500 - 1000 people). So it was an expansion of the original absentee ballot system, except you no longer needed a specific set of excuses to request a ballot.

No one knew back then that we would get hit like this with COVID-19 and that completely turned the whole election dynamic on its head!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 10:25 PM

42. Also, no one knew trump was going to totally diss voting by mail.

If the PA repugs passed this in hopes of getting more rural votes for their party, they really got screwed by their Dear Leader this election.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 10:49 PM

43. He's only dissing it in states where he lost!

You have red states like KY, MO, MT, & UT that have "mail-in" ballots (absentee or otherwise) that either allow COVID-19 as an "excuse" (and don't need to prove you tested positive like a couple other red states) or they offer it either statewide or by county, as an option).

He had no problem with their mail ballots.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 11:19 PM

45. I mean all the months before the election - he was constantly harping on mail-in ballots being bad.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 11:40 PM

47. He ratcheted that up yes

because he saw them pouring in, in states like PA (where it was new this year)!

PA counties had to wait until a court case was settled to knock the Green Party off the top of the ticket and once that was done, they could start printing and mailing ballots - and I think that started near the end of September. You also had him railing against NJ because Gov. Murphy opted to send every registered voter in the state a mail-in ballot (and of course 45 has a special affinity love/hate for NJ, aside from one of his favorite golf courses being there in Bedminister). NJ wasn't going to vote for him anyway but it provided the step-off point to attack PA and gin up his base here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:20 PM

32. Courts seek a remedy to a given situation.

In this case, there is no remedy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IsItJustMe (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 10:09 PM

40. I actually got done reading Judge Blann's ruling

Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2020, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)

and he even said that the "relief" they seem to want is not to restore their own votes (apparently this was a case of cherry-picked voters in certain red counties who had their ballots thrown out for various reasons including the "almighty 'naked ballot'" ), but they want to invalidate the votes of everyone else.

ETA - his opening was fantastic!

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters.

This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-opinion-federal-judge-dismisses-trump-campaign-lawsuit-in-pennsylvania/2afd3821-220b-4596-b172-aaa1d3ab63a5/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_10

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thekaspervote (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:22 PM

9. It was just filed this morning - so it hasn't been ruled on.

This is a different case than the one that the trump campaign brought to court and got thrown out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:19 PM

4. I wondered what scam bs they would come up with

After dismissal with prejudice earlier.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:20 PM

5. Just stop.

Republicans need to pay a price for all this nonsense.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:20 PM

6. Where were they after our primary election in PA? This is

so ridiculous and a waste of the court’s time. Sean Parnell needs to go work in Mike Kelly’s car lot.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:21 PM

7. The more they sue the angrier I get.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:27 PM

11. I know, right?

I really hope the Dems start pounding on the pugs about all these efforts to disenfranchise voters in state after state.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:41 PM

21. Biden-Harris won. Case closed. All these attempts to overturn a fair, free, and legal election

under the color of law are bullshit.

There's nothing legal about attempting to overturn a settled election that has been repeatedly deemed fair and accurate.

If the fascists are hoping to defeat me emotionally, they have another think coming.

I'm only getting angrier.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 10:09 PM

39. This is so piddly, but

thanks for saying "another think coming." Rather than "another thing coming." Ok, fine, I'm a grammar police but thanks. Plus, don't get angrier. We got this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birdographer (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 10:12 PM

41. You do you. :)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:28 PM

12. The more they sue, the harder I want to kick their asses. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazzieB (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:42 PM

22. Definitely.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:38 PM

18. I hope the more they sue, the more

they motivate voters in GA to flip the Senate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brer cat (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:42 PM

23. Oh, yes! Use that anger and vote!

Flip the Senate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:25 PM

10. Oh brother...

Ridiculous. Those ballots were cast by voters in GOOD FAITH. It would a crime to toss them out on such a technicality.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazzieB (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:22 PM

33. What technicality

dump and republicans saying don't count them. LOL

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:28 PM

13. Here is something from our Lt. Governor (John Fetterman) to keep in mind

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:44 PM

25. This was my first thought-- if they trash the ballots, they trash ALL of the ballot...

including every downballot race.

All this for Trump?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:12 PM

30. Exactly!



And then I saw somewhere (may not have been my state of PA) where they were discussing ONLY throwing out the votes for the Presidential ticket candidates and leaving the rest of the down-ballot votes alone, which are obviously ON THE SAME BALLOT. So they want to cherry-pick which votes "count".

EVERY court in the U.S., whether state or federal, should immediately refuse any case that they attempt to file from now on.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:36 PM

14. SAD.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:37 PM

15. Truly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:40 PM

20. So their current strategy is to keep on filing

suits that have already been dismissed? At what point to attorneys decide this is utter nonsense and refuse to take these cases? Or are they getting so much up front money that ethics never rears its ugly head?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:43 PM

24. This is a new angle, and it's not being filed by the trump campaign.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:25 PM

34. May be a new angle

but it is as corrupt and morally wrong as the rest. Same old shit, different day.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:01 PM

28. They're all turning into a bunch of adult toddlers just like whiny Donny

Grow the fuck up, you sore losers!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:03 PM

29. The courts will strike that down fast.

The PA constitution lists reasons absentee ballots shall be provided, it specifies no reasons they can't be. The law says they can.

The sentence beginning "A law under this etc." is part of a proposed amendment and is not in the present text. The rest is. It obviously does not restrict the legislature from allowing absentee ballots for other reasons.


(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 State or county 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. A law under this subsection may not require a qualified elector to physically appear at a designated polling place on the day of the election.

(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.[3]

https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_No-Excuse_Absentee_Voting_Amendment_(2021)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:48 PM

35. Lawsuit filing

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:55 PM

37. Thank you! Much appreciated!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 11:29 PM

46. These repuke lawsuits are quite the growth opportunity for willing shyster legal entrepreneurs.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2020, 12:10 AM

48. Locking

Dupe of https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142633536

Please continue discussion in that thread.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink