aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm surprised that the Secretary of State from Pennsylvania has responded already. I don't see that on the docket.

---

Different case. Alito ordered them to respond this morning in the Kelly case.

---

Thanks.

For anyone wanting to see the docket, it is at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

---

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not determine the legal method(s) of voting. Instead, it explicitly recognizes the methods of voting found in the law as being legal. Act 77 which was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor added mail-in voting as a legal method of voting. Thus, mail-in voting is recognized by the Pennsylvania Constitution as being legal.

---

Then why the pending PA constitutional amendment asking for no-fault absentee voting?

What is the difference between no-fault absentee voting and mail-in voting?

This argument is incredibly weak.

Much more likely that SCOTUS finds some other issue with this case than try and bye the argument that Act 77 doesn't violate the PA constitution.

---

Regarding the distinctin between absente voting and mail in voting in Pennsylvania, it seems like Pennsylvania doesn't think that the argument is weak.

From https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A98/162968/20201208090425848_20A98%20Response%20in%20Opposition%20efile.pdf

Quote:

---

Act 77 added extensive new sections to the Election Code, which distinguished between absentee and mail-in electors and provided procedures for the latter. See, e.g., 25 P.S. 2602(z.6), 3150.11-3150.17. Indeed, the Election Code repeatedly distinguishes between "mail-in" and "absentee" voting and regulates each category differently, including in defining a qualified mail-in versus absentee elector and in regulating servicemember absentee ballots. See 25 P.S. 2602 (defining "qualified mail-in elector"); 25 P.S. 3146.7 (regulating military servicemember ballots). The legislative history of Act 77 confirms that the General Assembly understood itself to be creating a form of voting distinct from absentee ballots. See Pa. H. Journal, at 1705 (2019) ("[W]e do have absentee voting, and by the time this bill passes, we will also have no-excuse, mail-in voting."); see also Pa. S. Journal, at 1000 (2019) (repeatedly referencing the new "mail-in ballots" scheme).

In passing Act 77, the General Assembly understood that such a significant overhaul of Pennsylvania's voting laws would be a lengthy and complex endeavor. It therefore sought to ensure that any challenges to the law's constitutionality would be resolved before Act 77 was implemented. To that end, the General Assembly included a provision that required all constitutional challenges to Act 77 to be brought within 180 days of its effective date. See Act 77 13(3).

...


In claiming that the mail-in balloting provisions of Act 77 are unconstitutional, Petitioners rely on nineteenth and early twentieth-century Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpretations of earlier versions of the Pennsylvania Constitution. For example, in Chase v. Miller, 41 Pa. 403, 419 (1862), the court relied on the 1838 Constitution's restriction of the franchise to "every white freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state one year, and in the election district where he offers to vote ten days immediately preceding such election, and within two years paid a state or county tax." PA. CONST. of 1838, art. III, 1. Citing concerns with unrestricted absentee voting, 41 Pa. at 419, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Chase that this constitutional provision precluded absentee voting. Id. Subsequent iterations of the Constitution permitted limited absentee voting. See, e.g., 1864 Pa. Laws 1054 (amendment permitting active duty soldiers to vote by absentee ballot).

In In re Contested Election in Fifth Ward of Lancaster City, 281 Pa. 131, 137 (1924), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Constitution authorized the General Assembly to extend absentee voting only to categories of voters "specifically named" in the Constitution. In 1949, an amendment was adopted providing that "[t]he General Assembly may, by general law, provide a manner in which" disabled war veterans could vote by absentee ballot. 1949 Pa. Laws 2138. Similar amendments in 1953 and 1957 provided that the General Assembly "may" allow certain other categories of absentee voters. 1953 Pa. Laws 1496; 1957 Pa. Laws 1019. In 1967, however, still another amendment (carried over into the 1968 Constitution) provided that "[t]he Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which" various categories of voters can vote by absentee ballot. PA. CONST. art. VII, 14 (emphasis added). Following this change, the General Assembly passed laws allowing other qualified electors not enumerated in the Constitution to vote absentee. See, e.g., 25 P.S. 3146.1(b) (military spouses); see also, e.g., 25 P.S. 2602(z.3) (electors on vacations, or sabbatical leaves). That history is entirely consistent with the General Assembly's own power to enact the scheme set forth in Act 77.

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

---

Does this mean PA, GA, MI, and WI can't send electoral college votes on the 14th since they are in dispute?

Ok.

Nice argument by one side.

What do Kelly et al say? Are they persuasive?

Is Cruz a bad constitutional lawyer? Better then you, perhaps?

marvda1 said:

---

let's take it to vote if the people of Texas want to use our money to keep a person in office who lost and won't admit it. oh I forgot it might get rigged.

---

what is your other/old username?

Quote:

---

JoinedDec 8, 2020
Total Posts2

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

marvda1 said:

---

Why don't we just do away with our form of government and just anoint Trump king. I am Bill Gates long lost son and I am owed the money. I will stand by that until I get it.

---

STAFF - Why do we allow rookie socks to post?!

---

Ignore em and flag for trolling.

marvda1 said:

---

Why don't we just do away with our form of government and just anoint Trump king. I am Bill Gates long lost son and I am owed the money. I will stand by that until I get it.

---

How about we don't unconstitutionally change election rules last minute, and let an avalanche of dubious and illegal mail-in ballots flood the system?

fooz said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

marvda1 said:

---

Why don't we just do away with our form of government and just anoint Trump king. I am Bill Gates long lost son and I am owed the money. I will stand by that until I get it.

---

STAFF - Why do we allow rookie socks to post?!

---

Ignore em and flag for trolling.

---

I am quite proficient at both of those... but still think Rookies shouldn't be allowed to start new threads.

fooz said:

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

---

---

Does this mean there will be an actual hearing or they are just going to consider hearing it?

fooz said:

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

---

---

The court has not agreed to hear anything.

Following

fooz said:

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

---

---

More of that crack twitter legal analysis

Cassius said:

---

Eric, you're on my ignore list, hoss.

---

He's been on mine for a long time.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Louisiana just joined the lawsuit with Texas.

---

Whoop!!!

BusterAg said:

---

Ok.

Nice argument by one side.

What do Kelly et al say? Are they persuasive?

Is Cruz a bad constitutional lawyer? Better then you, perhaps?

---

I read this wrong and was about to LOL at you, but then I saw you were responding to a resident troll

BusterAg said:

---

Ok.

Nice argument by one side.

What do Kelly et al say? Are they persuasive?

Is Cruz a bad constitutional lawyer? Better then you, perhaps?

---

One problem I had with reading Kelly's pleading was that he referenced cases, particularly Chase v Miller and In re Contested Election in Fifth Ward of Lancaster City, that I couldn't find a really good description of what they actually said. He seemed to be glossing over changes to the Pennsylvania Constitution and the statutes to try to make the case that the Constitution had always been interpreted the way he wished it to be interpreted.

This filing is far more informative about what was really going on with those cases.

FWIW, I spent some effort to show what I mean with quotes from the text, but I repeatedly keep getting a "Your forum code is invalid" message and cannot post the quotes here.

Link?

Tailgate88 said:

---

fooz said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

marvda1 said:

---

Why don't we just do away with our form of government and just anoint Trump king. I am Bill Gates long lost son and I am owed the money. I will stand by that until I get it.

---

STAFF - Why do we allow rookie socks to post?!

---

Ignore em and flag for trolling.

---

I am quite proficient at both of those... but still think Rookies shouldn't be allowed to start new threads.

---

Agree 100%

Nitro Power said:

---

Link?

---

Just edited and pasted it in my post above.

fooz said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

fooz said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

marvda1 said:

---

Why don't we just do away with our form of government and just anoint Trump king. I am Bill Gates long lost son and I am owed the money. I will stand by that until I get it.

---

STAFF - Why do we allow rookie socks to post?!

---

Ignore em and flag for trolling.

---

I am quite proficient at both of those... but still think Rookies shouldn't be allowed to start new threads.

---

Agree 100%

---

Agree 95%

Let them start threads in the general trash heap and zoo

Just want to point out that Louisiana used Dominion from my understanding from perusing tigerdroppings.

marvda1 said:

---

let's take it to vote if the people of Texas want to use our money to keep a person in office who lost and won't admit it. oh I forgot it might get rigged.

---

I vote yes

Quote:

---

Just want to point out that Louisiana used Dominion from my understanding from perusing tigerdroppings.

---

More like DEMinion

SCOTUS turning down the PA case 9-0 is probably not a great sign that they'll take this one up.

BusterAg said:

---

Ok.

Nice argument by one side.

What do Kelly et al say? Are they persuasive?

Is Cruz a bad constitutional lawyer? Better then you, perhaps?

---

I've read that he's was actually a pretty good con law guy. The question is how long has it been since he's argued a case and had to apply that knowledge. If he's asked what level of scrutiny should be applied, and he answers "normal scrutiny," the case is ****ed.

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

---

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not determine the legal method(s) of voting. Instead, it explicitly recognizes the methods of voting found in the law as being legal. Act 77 which was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor added mail-in voting as a legal method of voting. Thus, mail-in voting is recognized by the Pennsylvania Constitution as being legal.

---

Oh, since it is explicit, maybe you can provide a citation to the article and clause of the Penn Const that says this.

PS - check out Article VII, Section 14, which prescribes the only other permissible method besides in-person Election Day voting.

Correction said:

---

SCOTUS turning down the PA case 9-0 is probably not a great sign that they'll take this one up.

---

Probably the exact opposite

Here's a link to the Texas filing and expert declaration. This Twitter thread has a take on the expert opinion but I'd suggest reading it yourself before enjoying the commentary

I'll go ahead and ignore your partisan expert's opinion. Thanks