Reply #18: All this means is that INJUNCTIVE relief is not available

[Land Shark]

(unless and until the full opinion says more)

The law presumes that actions for damages are available, and one has to show that there is "no adequate remedy at law" before any injunctive relief can be granted.

THe PA Supreme court could be reversing on that ground alone, and on the wording of the opinion that seems like the most likely reason.

SO, what's important is that the supreme court of PA is NOT saying that there didn't need to be an election (NOTE THE MEDIA IS MORE THAN HAPPY TO REINFORCE THE MESSAGE OF FUTILITY THAT'S NOT THERE AND TO ADOPT THE GOVT TALKING POINT THAT THERE DIDN'T NEED TO BE AN ELECTION).... it's only saying that you can't use injunctive relief to stop it. You may well be able to sue to have the contract found to be void, as I sued for at www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (decisions pending)

Also, this is not necessarily, as suggested below, a PA Supreme court finding that HAVA preempts state elections....

Prehaps there are unique PA considerations that go beyond the Pelligrini trial court opinion. but as a non-PA attorney, this is the clear impression I get.