GOP seeks to place limits on Absentee voting and Early Voting on Sunday

[W_Heisenberg]

Yes, most developed nations only allow this if you can't get to the polls.

I don't know Anthony...

I don't know how accurate your statement is.

I am missing a handful of countries as this was what I could quickly find...

But it doesn't seem like your statement is that accurate, but then again you probably got your information from your cult leader, the idiot, Trump. Trump doesn't know a damn thing about anything.

Even if you're right, and it's "most" countries, there are still 10 that allow nearly unrestricted access to vote by mail, and 3 others that allow early voting.

No excuse needed (meaning allowed even if you can get to the polls):

Canada
United Kingdom
Switzerland (Universal postal voting)
Germany
Austria
South Korea (if 40 something percent can vote by mail, this counts)
Iceland
Poland (Universal postal voting)
Luxembourg
New Zealand (Universal postal voting)

Excuse needed or living abroad:

Italy
Spain
Ireland
Finland

Banned:

France

Early Voting:

Norway
Denmark
Japan

 

[OpportunityCost]

Your post is a gigantic pile of dog shit.
https://ballotpedia.org/Same-day_voter_registration


'No fault registration'? Have no idea what that is or even means and I strongly suspect that you don't either. Just something you pulled out of your butt.

No fault absentee registration, missed a word.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

If they promulgate any rule of any sort it must comport with the law on the books, they cant just go crazy and change whatever they want. IN ESSENCE, they are facilitating election law within their own county.

1. Okay, so THIS is where the rubber meets the road. This is my response: just because some pro-Trump lawyer says that a state or local government agency went in and acted "crazy and chang[ed] whatever they want[ed]" doesn't mean it is true. We cannot accept their arguments at face value. They may actually be wrong about what it is they are arguing about. You take it for granted that if someone acting on Trump's behalf said a rule change violated the election statutes then that must necessarily be the case. And if you have an argument you want to make in this respect, then make it and PROVE it by citing the necessary authorities (PA statutes, PA constitution, U.S. Constitution, etc.) INSTEAD of waving your hands in the air and making funny faces at people (metaphorically, of course).

2. With respect to the state courts -- they can change certain things about an election law statute -- within certain constraints (is it constitutional or not, is there some other overriding legal principle that is coming into conflict with the statute).

For example, let's look at what the PA Supreme Court said about the deadline extension in Sept of 2020:

Nevertheless, we find the Commonwealth Court’s rationale in In re: General Election-1985 germane to the current challenge to the application of the ballot received by deadline. In that case, the court recognized that, while neither the Constitution nor the Election Code specified “any procedure to follow when a natural disaster creates an emergency situation that interferes with an election,” courts could look to the direction of 25 P.S. § 3046. In re General Election-1985, 531 A.2d at 839. As noted, Section 3046 provides courts of common pleas the power, on the day of an election, to decide “matters pertaining to the election as may be necessary to carry out the intent” of the Election Code, which the Commonwealth Court properly deemed to include providing “an equal opportunity for all eligible electors to participate in the election process,” which in that case necessitated delaying the election during a flood.

We have no hesitation in concluding that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic equates to a natural disaster. See Friends of Devito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872, 888 (Pa. 2020) (agreeing “that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a ‘natural disaster’ under the Emergency Code”).

Under our Extraordinary Jurisdiction, this Court can and should act to extend the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters. We have previously recognized that, in enforcing the Free and Equal Elections Clause, this “Court possesses broad authority to craft meaningful remedies when required.” League of Women Voters, 178 A.3d at 822 (citing PA. CONST., art. V, §§ 1, 2, 10; 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 (granting power to “enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done”)).

Loading…

www.pacourts.us

I suppose now you will try to argue how the PA Supreme Court is forbidden from reviewing statutes passed by the legislature, and then I'll point out how the PA Supreme Court has the power of judicial review within PA, and then you'll modify what you wrote and pretend you really meant to say something else....and on it goes.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

If they promulgate any rule of any sort it must comport with the law on the books, they cant just go crazy and change whatever they want. IN ESSENCE, they are facilitating election law within their own county.

BTW stop with the integrity, character bullshit. Its aimed at me, not my comments, put that nonsensical bullshit back in your hat and quit getting personal.

You wrote: They do not promulgate rules, they enforce and administer the rules already there.

Now you write: If they promulgate any rule of any sort it must comport with the law on the books

This is not my mistake.

This is YOUR mistake.

YOU were not clear. Not me. YOU.

Normally people say, "You know what. I made a mistake. I should have said such and such."

Why can't you do it?

 

[Atomic Kid]

No fault absentee registration, missed a word.

Still not a thing. If you're an eligible voter able to meet the proper id requirements, then your an eligible voter, period.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Still not a thing. If you're an eligible voter able to meet the proper id requirements, then your an eligible voter, period.

Ok no fault absentee registration is when you can get a absentee registration without having any need to use one. Democrats are seeking to make that permanent because its so ripe with fraud its rotten.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You wrote: They do not promulgate rules, they enforce and administer the rules already there.

Now you write: If they promulgate any rule of any sort it must comport with the law on the books

This is not my mistake.

This is YOUR mistake.

YOU were not clear. Not me. YOU.

Normally people say, "You know what. I made a mistake. I should have said such and such."

Why can't you do it?

Because your argument remains stupid. You are arguing they can do whatever. They cannot.

 

[OpportunityCost]

1. Okay, so THIS is where the rubber meets the road. This is my response: just because some pro-Trump lawyer says that a state or local government agency went in and acted "crazy and chang[ed] whatever they want[ed]" doesn't mean it is true. We cannot accept their arguments at face value. They may actually be wrong about what it is they are arguing about. You take it for granted that if someone acting on Trump's behalf said a rule change violated the election statutes then that must necessarily be the case. And if you have an argument you want to make in this respect, then make it and PROVE it by citing the necessary authorities (PA statutes, PA constitution, U.S. Constitution, etc.) INSTEAD of waving your hands in the air and making funny faces at people (metaphorically, of course).

2. With respect to the state courts -- they can change certain things about an election law statute -- within certain constraints (is it constitutional or not, is there some other overriding legal principle that is coming into conflict with the statute).

For example, let's look at what the PA Supreme Court said about the deadline extension in Sept of 2020:

Nevertheless, we find the Commonwealth Court’s rationale in In re: General Election-1985 germane to the current challenge to the application of the ballot received by deadline. In that case, the court recognized that, while neither the Constitution nor the Election Code specified “any procedure to follow when a natural disaster creates an emergency situation that interferes with an election,” courts could look to the direction of 25 P.S. § 3046. In re General Election-1985, 531 A.2d at 839. As noted, Section 3046 provides courts of common pleas the power, on the day of an election, to decide “matters pertaining to the election as may be necessary to carry out the intent” of the Election Code, which the Commonwealth Court properly deemed to include providing “an equal opportunity for all eligible electors to participate in the election process,” which in that case necessitated delaying the election during a flood.

We have no hesitation in concluding that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic equates to a natural disaster. See Friends of Devito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872, 888 (Pa. 2020) (agreeing “that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a ‘natural disaster’ under the Emergency Code”).

Under our Extraordinary Jurisdiction, this Court can and should act to extend the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters. We have previously recognized that, in enforcing the Free and Equal Elections Clause, this “Court possesses broad authority to craft meaningful remedies when required.” League of Women Voters, 178 A.3d at 822 (citing PA. CONST., art. V, §§ 1, 2, 10; 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 (granting power to “enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done”)).

Loading…

www.pacourts.us

I suppose now you will try to argue how the PA Supreme Court is forbidden from reviewing statutes passed by the legislature, and then I'll point out how the PA Supreme Court has the power of judicial review within PA, and then you'll modify what you wrote and pretend you really meant to say something else....and on it goes.

So many words, so many straw men, so little facts. The Pennsylvania SC decided to make a power grab and change exact dates on election rules. ****ing fascinating. Absolutely no conflict of interest there. They rubber stamped their own decision.

BTW, quoting all their excuses why they were usurping election rules to benefit their political party isn't convincing in the slightest.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Ok no fault absentee registration is when you can get a absentee registration without having any need to use one. Democrats are seeking to make that permanent because its so ripe with fraud its rotten.

You're still aren't getting it. No fault absentee registration isn't a thing. Many states decided that being in the midst of a pandemic was justification enough and the responsible thing to do. Trump shot himself in the foot with his baseless railings against mail in voting. Many of his and the GOP's base of support resides among older Americans and those in remote rural areas where being just physically able to get a polling place to vote in person as Trump had insisted (despite the fact he uses mail in ballots himself to vote) is a real issue for them on top of their own enhanced vulnerability to the virus. He probably lost untold thousands upon thousands of votes because of that. And all because he had been planning to use the greater propensity for democratic voters to use mail in ballots as opposed to republican voters, which he actively worked on discouraging them from doing, was so that he could claim fraud when the mail in ballots, which mostly are not counted until after live vote is counted, eventually narrows and overtakes his early live vote count. He had been planning for the insurrection attempt that took place on January 6 for long time beforehand, What happened was no accident.

 

[Jredbaron96]

"Alito’s statement read: “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U.S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.” "

The relief sought was too onerous to the election.

Nowhere does he say that. You are inventing meaning where there is none. All he said was that SCOTUS could not deny the filing due to procedure. Do you understand what original jurisdiction is?

He then states very clearly "but would not grant other relief".

If he says the filing of the bill of complaint must be heard as a matter of protocol but no other relief is granted, then he is clearly stating there is nothing more to the case except a matter of procedure.

I can't tell if you're just genuinely incapable of comprehending this or are so blinded by your beliefs you can't accept any alternative.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Nowhere does he say that. You are inventing meaning where there is none. All he said was that SCOTUS could not deny the filing due to procedure. Do you understand what original jurisdiction is?

He then states very clearly "but would not grant other relief".

If he says the filing of the bill of complaint must be heard as a matter of protocol but no other relief is granted, then he is clearly stating there is nothing more to the case except a matter of procedure.

I can't tell if you're just genuinely incapable of comprehending this or are so blinded by your beliefs you can't accept any alternative.

What was the relief sought? If you start from that you can understand why the relief sought could not be granted.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You're still aren't getting it. No fault absentee registration isn't a thing. Many states decided that being in the midst of a pandemic was justification enough and the responsible thing to do. Trump shot himself in the foot with his baseless railings against mail in voting. Many of his and the GOP's base of support resides among older Americans and those in remote rural areas where being just physically able to get a polling place to vote in person as Trump had insisted (despite the fact he uses mail in ballots himself to vote) is a real issue for them on top of their own enhanced vulnerability to the virus. He probably lost untold thousands upon thousands of votes because of that. And all because he had been planning to use the greater propensity for democratic voters to use mail in ballots as opposed to republican voters, which he actively worked on discouraging them from doing, was so that he could claim fraud when the mail in ballots, which mostly are not counted until after live vote is counted, eventually narrows and overtakes his early live vote count. He had been planning for the insurrection attempt that took place on January 6 for long time beforehand, What happened was no accident.

Oh ok, something that was on the ballot in Pennsylvania, isn't a thing. Gotcha.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Because your argument remains stupid. You are arguing they can do whatever. They cannot.

At no point have I argued they can do whatever they want. That is a strawman. I have not written that, and I don't appreciate you lying about what I wrote. I said that there is nothing special about election law that makes it different from other types of election law. The state government (executive) and the state courts have some say in how the law is implemented and interpreted. This does not mean they have a blank check to do whatever they want. Nor, does it mean that any deviation from what is explicitly written in the election statutes is illegal. Again, as I've stated previously, the devil is in the details. What does the law say, what change is being implemented, what overriding legal principles might take precedent, and so on and so forth.

You are smarter than this. And if you're smarter than this, and you know what you're doing, then that means you're being intellectually dishonest. Why are you being dishonest?

You wrote PA "has never allowed administrative law to creep into election rules."

You wrote the election county boards "do not promulgate rules"

Both of these statements are false.

In both cases, I proved you wrong by citing the relevant authorities. Instead of saying, "Ooops, I was wrong." or "I wasn't clear I should have written such and such." Your response was to say my argument is stupid, and I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So many words, so many straw men, so little facts. The Pennsylvania SC decided to make a power grab and change exact dates on election rules. ****ing fascinating. Absolutely no conflict of interest there. They rubber stamped their own decision.

BTW, quoting all their excuses why they were usurping election rules to benefit their political party isn't convincing in the slightest.

I already have you on record as agreeing that the PA legislature and the PA Constitution granted to the county election boards rule-making authority.

Does the PA Supreme Court have the power of Judicial Review with respect to PA law, including PA election law?

Yes or no?

If you believe the answer is yes, then on what basis do you conclude the PA Supreme Court was wrong?

What is your rationale?

Don't just say they're wrong...that's not good enough.

WHY were they wrong?

I gave you their argument. WHY was their argument wrong?

What aspect of the PA Constitution, the PA Election Statutes, or the U.S. Constitution leads you to believe that in this specific instance the PA Supreme Court erred?

Just asserting they erred is not enough. You have to PROVE it. Just repeating the garbage pro-Trump talking points isn't enough. That's not an argument. That's propaganda.

And for the sake of accuracy, here is their argument again:

Nevertheless, we find the Commonwealth Court’s rationale in In re: General Election-1985 germane to the current challenge to the application of the ballot received by deadline. In that case, the court recognized that, while neither the Constitution nor the Election Code specified “any procedure to follow when a natural disaster creates an emergency situation that interferes with an election,” courts could look to the direction of 25 P.S. § 3046. In re General Election-1985, 531 A.2d at 839. As noted, Section 3046 provides courts of common pleas the power, on the day of an election, to decide “matters pertaining to the election as may be necessary to carry out the intent” of the Election Code, which the Commonwealth Court properly deemed to include providing “an equal opportunity for all eligible electors to participate in the election process,” which in that case necessitated delaying the election during a flood.

We have no hesitation in concluding that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic equates to a natural disaster. See Friends of Devito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872, 888 (Pa. 2020) (agreeing “that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a ‘natural disaster’ under the Emergency Code”).

Under our Extraordinary Jurisdiction, this Court can and should act to extend the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters. We have previously recognized that, in enforcing the Free and Equal Elections Clause, this “Court possesses broad authority to craft meaningful remedies when required.” League of Women Voters, 178 A.3d at 822 (citing PA. CONST., art. V, §§ 1, 2, 10; 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 (granting power to “enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done”)).

 

[dcsports]

1. Okay, so THIS is where the rubber meets the road. This is my response: just because some pro-Trump lawyer says that a state or local government agency went in and acted "crazy and chang[ed] whatever they want[ed]" doesn't mean it is true. We cannot accept their arguments at face value. They may actually be wrong about what it is they are arguing about. You take it for granted that if someone acting on Trump's behalf said a rule change violated the election statutes then that must necessarily be the case. And if you have an argument you want to make in this respect, then make it and PROVE it by citing the necessary authorities (PA statutes, PA constitution, U.S. Constitution, etc.) INSTEAD of waving your hands in the air and making funny faces at people (metaphorically, of course).

2. With respect to the state courts -- they can change certain things about an election law statute -- within certain constraints (is it constitutional or not, is there some other overriding legal principle that is coming into conflict with the statute).

For example, let's look at what the PA Supreme Court said about the deadline extension in Sept of 2020:

Nevertheless, we find the Commonwealth Court’s rationale in In re: General Election-1985 germane to the current challenge to the application of the ballot received by deadline. In that case, the court recognized that, while neither the Constitution nor the Election Code specified “any procedure to follow when a natural disaster creates an emergency situation that interferes with an election,” courts could look to the direction of 25 P.S. § 3046. In re General Election-1985, 531 A.2d at 839. As noted, Section 3046 provides courts of common pleas the power, on the day of an election, to decide “matters pertaining to the election as may be necessary to carry out the intent” of the Election Code, which the Commonwealth Court properly deemed to include providing “an equal opportunity for all eligible electors to participate in the election process,” which in that case necessitated delaying the election during a flood.

We have no hesitation in concluding that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic equates to a natural disaster. See Friends of Devito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872, 888 (Pa. 2020) (agreeing “that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a ‘natural disaster’ under the Emergency Code”).

Under our Extraordinary Jurisdiction, this Court can and should act to extend the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters. We have previously recognized that, in enforcing the Free and Equal Elections Clause, this “Court possesses broad authority to craft meaningful remedies when required.” League of Women Voters, 178 A.3d at 822 (citing PA. CONST., art. V, §§ 1, 2, 10; 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 (granting power to “enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done”)).

Loading…

www.pacourts.us

I suppose now you will try to argue how the PA Supreme Court is forbidden from reviewing statutes passed by the legislature, and then I'll point out how the PA Supreme Court has the power of judicial review within PA, and then you'll modify what you wrote and pretend you really meant to say something else....and on it goes.

It's a pretty weak argument to make on their part though. While the Covid-19 pandemic is serious, it wasn't emergent with regards to the election - it was ongoing for 8+ months in the US at that point. The legislature had already considered whether changes needed to be made, and didn't do so. There was no change in circumstance to prompt the change, and nothing that would limit the ability of people to return their ballots in a timely manner.

 

[TomFitz]

I don't know Anthony...

I don't know how accurate your statement is.

I am missing a handful of countries as this was what I could quickly find...

But it doesn't seem like your statement is that accurate, but then again you probably got your information from your cult leader, the idiot, Trump. Trump doesn't know a damn thing about anything.

Even if you're right, and it's "most" countries, there are still 10 that allow nearly unrestricted access to vote by mail, and 3 others that allow early voting.

No excuse needed (meaning allowed even if you can get to the polls):

Canada
United Kingdom
Switzerland (Universal postal voting)
Germany
Austria
South Korea (if 40 something percent can vote by mail, this counts)
Iceland
Poland (Universal postal voting)
Luxembourg
New Zealand (Universal postal voting)

Excuse needed or living abroad:

Italy
Spain
Ireland
Finland

Banned:

France

Early Voting:

Norway
Denmark
Japan

Don’t confuse then with the facts.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It's a pretty weak argument to make on their part though. While the Covid-19 pandemic is serious, it wasn't emergent with regards to the election - it was ongoing for 8+ months in the US at that point. The legislature had already considered whether changes needed to be made, and didn't do so. There was no change in circumstance to prompt the change, and nothing that would limit the ability of people to return their ballots in a timely manner.

Act-77 was passed in 2019.

The information about USPS delays became public in the summer of 2020.

That was the change that needed to be dealt with.

The PA Supreme Court's argument combines Covid-19 and the USPS delays to justify the extension of the deadline.

 

[Jredbaron96]

What was the relief sought? If you start from that you can understand why the relief sought could not be granted.

If your argument is that the relief asked for could not be granted because the Court nor Texas had the authority or even reason to grant it, sure. But that sinks the whole argument because then Texas is simply stupid for trying to ask for that relief in the first place.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I already have you on record as agreeing that the PA legislature and the PA Constitution granted to the county election boards rule-making authority.

Does the PA Supreme Court have the power of Judicial Review with respect to PA law, including PA election law?

Yes or no?

If you believe the answer is yes, then on what basis do you conclude the PA Supreme Court was wrong?

What is your rationale?

Don't just say they're wrong...that's not good enough.

WHY were they wrong?

I gave you their argument. WHY was their argument wrong?

What aspect of the PA Constitution, the PA Election Statutes, or the U.S. Constitution leads you to believe that in this specific instance the PA Supreme Court erred?

Just asserting they erred is not enough. You have to PROVE it. Just repeating the garbage pro-Trump talking points isn't enough. That's not an argument. That's propaganda.

And for the sake of accuracy, here is their argument again:

Nevertheless, we find the Commonwealth Court’s rationale in In re: General Election-1985 germane to the current challenge to the application of the ballot received by deadline. In that case, the court recognized that, while neither the Constitution nor the Election Code specified “any procedure to follow when a natural disaster creates an emergency situation that interferes with an election,” courts could look to the direction of 25 P.S. § 3046. In re General Election-1985, 531 A.2d at 839. As noted, Section 3046 provides courts of common pleas the power, on the day of an election, to decide “matters pertaining to the election as may be necessary to carry out the intent” of the Election Code, which the Commonwealth Court properly deemed to include providing “an equal opportunity for all eligible electors to participate in the election process,” which in that case necessitated delaying the election during a flood.

We have no hesitation in concluding that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic equates to a natural disaster. See Friends of Devito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872, 888 (Pa. 2020) (agreeing “that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a ‘natural disaster’ under the Emergency Code”).

Under our Extraordinary Jurisdiction, this Court can and should act to extend the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters. We have previously recognized that, in enforcing the Free and Equal Elections Clause, this “Court possesses broad authority to craft meaningful remedies when required.” League of Women Voters, 178 A.3d at 822 (citing PA. CONST., art. V, §§ 1, 2, 10; 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 (granting power to “enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done”)).

Obvious corruption.

 

[OpportunityCost]

At no point have I argued they can do whatever they want. That is a strawman. I have not written that, and I don't appreciate you lying about what I wrote. I said that there is nothing special about election law that makes it different from other types of election law. The state government (executive) and the state courts have some say in how the law is implemented and interpreted. This does not mean they have a blank check to do whatever they want. Nor, does it mean that any deviation from what is explicitly written in the election statutes is illegal. Again, as I've stated previously, the devil is in the details. What does the law say, what change is being implemented, what overriding legal principles might take precedent, and so on and so forth.

You are smarter than this. And if you're smarter than this, and you know what you're doing, then that means you're being intellectually dishonest. Why are you being dishonest?

You wrote PA "has never allowed administrative law to creep into election rules."

You wrote the election county boards "do not promulgate rules"

Both of these statements are false.

In both cases, I proved you wrong by citing the relevant authorities. Instead of saying, "Ooops, I was wrong." or "I wasn't clear I should have written such and such." Your response was to say my argument is stupid, and I don't know what I'm talking about.

You don't, because you are arguing they could have somehow changed state wide laws. Unless they can our entire conversation you have chased down the rabbit hole is irrelevant. But you are more concerned with calling me wrong than addressing the larger argument that Pennsylvania is corrupt as ****.

 

[D_NATURED]

False, and no one is advocating voter suppression

I've got to disagree. It was, after all, the GOP who operated for decades under an injunction for voter caging. There's been a conservative tradition of disinfrachising black people for many years. Please accept reality and join us in condemning the anti-democratic GOP. They DO suck balls.

The Republican Party Emerges From Decades of Court Supervision

After being bound by a consent decree for 35 years, the Republican National Committee is now free to continue its “ballot security” campaign.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Tahuyaman]

You do know each state has GOP and Democrat representatives in state legislatures, right?

I would very much like for you explain how the two candidates up for election last November have their party affiliation literally on the ballot.

View attachment 67319947

The GOP is not a legislative branch. A legislature is made up of Democrats, Republicans and even independents or third party types. The GOP is a political organization which has no legislative authority.

 

[Tahuyaman]

I've got to disagree. It was, after all, the GOP who operated for decades under an injunction for voter caging. There's been a conservative tradition of disinfrachising black people for many years. Please accept reality and join us in condemning the anti-democratic GOP. They DO suck balls.

The Republican Party Emerges From Decades of Court Supervision

After being bound by a consent decree for 35 years, the Republican National Committee is now free to continue its “ballot security” campaign.

www.theatlantic.com

It doesn't get much more juvenile than that.

 

[year2late]

Yes, most developed nations only allow this if you can't get to the polls.

I have been absentee voting for probably 3 decades. I spent the first decade of my nursing career maybe voting....maybe not. They are not going to give everybody the day off...and I may or may not know in time to change to absentee, On top of that, many people live and work in totally different cities. I tried in person voting a city hall, and I just did not have the ability to juggle family responsibilities and work when city hall took too long.

Many people also are scrounging for every available shift just to make ends meet. Would you like to choose between paying the rent and voting? Should they lose their vote because weather conditions are bad? Or they do not want to risk catching a communicable disease in the midst of a Pandemic?

Anthony.....it probably would better to figure out how the mail in process could be safer rather than making it so poor working stiffs like myself should be excluded from the process.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You don't, because you are arguing they could have somehow changed state wide laws. Unless they can our entire conversation you have chased down the rabbit hole is irrelevant. But you are more concerned with calling me wrong than addressing the larger argument that Pennsylvania is corrupt as ****.

Is it your opinion that the Supreme Court of PA does not have the power of Judicial Review with respect to the laws of Pennsylvania?

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

Obvious corruption.

If the Supreme Court of PA has the power to intervene in cases like this then your argument that there was obvious corruption has to respond to the Supreme Court's opinion, not just the notion of the Supreme Court intervening.

Does the Supreme Court of PA have the power of Judicial Review with respect to the laws of Pennsylvania? Yes or no?