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

[year2late]

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.

Define need.
Be specific.

 

[Anthony60]

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.

I don't see Trump's name attached on this paper, do you? He knows quite a bit more than you, it seems.

Why do most countries ban mail-in ballots?: They have seen massive vote fraud problems

...absentee ballots are different from universal mail-in ballots. Absentee ballots require voters specifically request a ballot. By contrast, all registered voters automatically receive universal mail-in ballots.

Besides the United States, there are 36 member states in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Fifty percent ban absentee voting unless the citizen is living abroad, and an additional 38% require a photo-ID to obtain an absentee ballot. Fourteen percent of the countries ban absentee mail voting even for those living abroad.

Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 67% ban mail-in absentee voting unless living abroad and another 26% require a photo-ID to obtain a mail-in absentee ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Define need.
Be specific.

No physical or psychological impairment. Absolutely no requirement at all. They could just request one and it was granted.

 

[Anthony60]

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.

Yes, it would be better to make mail in voting more secure. That's why it is interesting that the Democrats filed lawsuits to strip away any security at all. Why do you suppose they would do that? Well, the answer to that is obvious.

Sorry, just because some people can't fit voting into their schedule, that's no reason to destroy the security of an election. They can all request absentee ballots. That's not new, that's been around forever.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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.



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?

It is my opinion their decisions were self serving and they are corrupt as hell. To define it better for you, remember how every single move Trump did for the last four ****ing years was considered corrupt by you? Now apply those standards to the Penn SC.

 

[reflechissez]

Yes, it would be better to make mail in voting more secure. That's why it is interesting that the Democrats filed lawsuits to strip away any security at all. Why do you suppose they would do that? Well, the answer to that is obvious.

Sorry, just because some people can't fit voting into their schedule, that's no reason to destroy the security of an election. They can all request absentee ballots. That's not new, that's been around forever.

How is mail-in voting less "secure?" What lawsuits did democrats file that "stripped away any security at all?"

 

[HangLow]

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 disenfranchising 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

​

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It is my opinion their decisions were self serving and they are corrupt as hell. To define it better for you, remember how every single move Trump did for the last four ****ing years was considered corrupt by you? Now apply those standards to the Penn SC.

You keep insisting that the PA Supreme Court forcing a change on the PA election system is a corrupt act in and of itself. You keep insisting that the mere fact PA Supreme Court implemented a change with respect to the election process is corrupt on its face. That is not true. If you believe that then you do not understand how our government or legal system works. The PA Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review with respect to the laws of PA. This is true despite what you repeatedly and mistakenly said in this thread. Whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you accept the outcome or not, and no matter how much you protest, and no matter how many times you disparage the arguments of those who disagree with you, the PA Supreme Court actually does have the power to change PA law, and specifically, PA election law. Now, it may be true that the PA Supreme Court engaged in a corrupt act, but in order to understand if they did or not -- absent other evidence -- you have to understand their argument, their rationale, you have to ask yourself: "Did the PA Supreme Court, using the lawful authority it has, rule on this matter in a way that was so out of line with precedent, logic, and how our legal system works that our only conclusion is that their opinion was the result of some corrupt intent?" You have not done this. It's that simple. At this point, all you know, all we know, is the PA Supreme Court made a decision you do not agree with, but the fact that you don't agree with their decision isn't enough to say they are "corrupt as hell." That's just you and other Trump supporters bitching and whining about an outcome you don't like. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I assume, based on your refusal to answer my questions, that you agree with me that the PA Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.

My question to you is very simple: Since the PA Supreme Court has the power to change the law what was it about the PA Supreme Court's argument that was wrong?

If you can't answer that question, you don't have an argument.

 

[Anthony60]

How is mail-in voting less "secure?" What lawsuits did democrats file that "stripped away any security at all?"

It's inherently less secure by the obvious fact that you are not voting in person. If a ballot comes to my house for another household member, I could easily send it in myself. Pennsylvania accepted mail in votes up to three days after the election, and get this -- without a "clear postmark". So, who knows where they came from?

And then you have drop boxes. No post mark at all, who put them there? Of course, the overall practice of sending out mail in ballots to everyone. Half the people don't vote, but there are ballots out there for them. And surprise, surprise... a record number of people voted. Or, more accurately, a record number of ballots were returned, no way to tell who actually voted.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You keep insisting that the PA Supreme Court forcing a change on the PA election system is a corrupt act in and of itself. You keep insisting that the mere fact PA Supreme Court implemented a change with respect to the election process is corrupt on its face. That is not true. If you believe that then you do not understand how our government or legal system works. The PA Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review with respect to the laws of PA. This is true despite what you repeatedly and mistakenly said in this thread. Whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you accept the outcome or not, and no matter how much you protest, and no matter how many times you disparage the arguments of those who disagree with you, the PA Supreme Court actually does have the power to change PA law, and specifically, PA election law. Now, it may be true that the PA Supreme Court engaged in a corrupt act, but in order to understand if they did or not -- absent other evidence -- you have to understand their argument, their rationale, you have to ask yourself: "Did the PA Supreme Court, using the lawful authority it has, rule on this matter in a way that was so out of line with precedent, logic, and how our legal system works that our only conclusion is that their opinion was the result of some corrupt intent?" You have not done this. It's that simple. At this point, all you know, all we know, is the PA Supreme Court made a decision you do not agree with, but the fact that you don't agree with their decision isn't enough to say they are "corrupt as hell." That's just you and other Trump supporters bitching and whining about an outcome you don't like. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I assume, based on your refusal to answer my questions, that you agree with me that the PA Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.

My question to you is very simple: Since the PA Supreme Court has the power to change the law what was it about the PA Supreme Court's argument that was wrong?

If you can't answer that question, you don't have an argument.

Its funny, you say they have the power to change election law. They have the power to make rulings regarding constitutionality, at least that is supposed to be the limit of their mandate. The times, places, and manner are restricted to legislative decisions, specifically granted as a plenary power to state legislatures. Tell me, when was the last time a state Supreme Court decided they would change established legislative rules regarding times, places, and manner of an election?

Are you actually for State Supreme Courts deciding how elections are held and eliminating that power from legislatures? Because that is what you are advocating.

 

[D_NATURED]

It doesn't get much more juvenile than that.

Which part, the truth about their treacherous behavior or the truth about them sucking balls? Don't forget to ignore the substance and go right to word-sensitive, phony butthurt.

 

[Athanasius68]

You keep insisting that the PA Supreme Court forcing a change on the PA election system is a corrupt act in and of itself. You keep insisting that the mere fact PA Supreme Court implemented a change with respect to the election process is corrupt on its face. That is not true. If you believe that then you do not understand how our government or legal system works. The PA Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review with respect to the laws of PA. This is true despite what you repeatedly and mistakenly said in this thread. Whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you accept the outcome or not, and no matter how much you protest, and no matter how many times you disparage the arguments of those who disagree with you, the PA Supreme Court actually does have the power to change PA law, and specifically, PA election law. Now, it may be true that the PA Supreme Court engaged in a corrupt act, but in order to understand if they did or not -- absent other evidence -- you have to understand their argument, their rationale, you have to ask yourself: "Did the PA Supreme Court, using the lawful authority it has, rule on this matter in a way that was so out of line with precedent, logic, and how our legal system works that our only conclusion is that their opinion was the result of some corrupt intent?" You have not done this. It's that simple. At this point, all you know, all we know, is the PA Supreme Court made a decision you do not agree with, but the fact that you don't agree with their decision isn't enough to say they are "corrupt as hell." That's just you and other Trump supporters bitching and whining about an outcome you don't like. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I assume, based on your refusal to answer my questions, that you agree with me that the PA Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.

My question to you is very simple: Since the PA Supreme Court has the power to change the law what was it about the PA Supreme Court's argument that was wrong?

If you can't answer that question, you don't have an argument.

Over the past year, Mr. Trump faced ridicule when he threatened to "go to court" in response to being impeached. He was ridiculed because the USA Constitution gives the House "sole" power of impeachment. The 'system' doesn't permit the courts to review that decision by the House of Representatives.

We also all know that federal law is supreme over state law, and that the Constitution is supreme over both.

Well, as has been long pointed out, the USA Constitution gives the state legislature the power to decide how its electors will be selected.
Pennsylvania passed a law which said all ballots for president must be received by Election Day. That was how Pennsylvania chose to exercise its authority in selecting electors.
The PA Supreme Court ordered the state to accept ballots for counting up to three days after Election Day.

Like with impeachment, the issue isn't whether the 'system' authorizes the Pennsylvania courts to rule upon Pennsylvania law. The issue is whether the Pennsylvania courts can overturn a law written by the legislature, and based upon a power specifically granted to the state legislature by the USA Constitution.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Which part, the truth about their treacherous behavior or the truth about them sucking balls? Don't forget to ignore the substance and go right to word-sensitive, phony butthurt.

When in doubt double down on the juvenile idiocy.

 

[year2late]

No physical or psychological impairment. Absolutely no requirement at all. They could just request one and it was granted.

So just screw the people who need to work and live far away from their workplace?
Screw the people who have many family obligations that are on irregular time schedules?

I have been in one or both of those positions for 30 (actually closer to 40) years.

Mail in voting gives me the flexibility I need to prioritize my family and work obligations with being able to vote.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So just screw the people who need to work and live far away from their workplace?
Screw the people who have many family obligations that are on irregular time schedules?

I have been in one or both of those positions for 30 (actually closer to 40) years.

Mail in voting gives me the flexibility I need to prioritize my family and work obligations with being able to vote.

I thank you for all your straw men responses. Request a mail in ballot ahead of time and follow the instructions from your state. You are indicating real life obligations that interfere with your ability to vote. Most states make allowances for this. Do you believe the majority of the populace falls into this?

 

[reflechissez]

It's inherently less secure by the obvious fact that you are not voting in person. If a ballot comes to my house for another household member, I could easily send it in myself. Pennsylvania accepted mail in votes up to three days after the election, and get this -- without a "clear postmark". So, who knows where they came from?

And then you have drop boxes. No post mark at all, who put them there? Of course, the overall practice of sending out mail in ballots to everyone. Half the people don't vote, but there are ballots out there for them. And surprise, surprise... a record number of people voted. Or, more accurately, a record number of ballots were returned, no way to tell who actually voted.

So, the problem is you can't trust the people you live with AND this has to occur in millions of households all over the country (except for the states that trump won)? They also have to be able to successfully forge your signature.

What difference does it make whether you know who put the ballot in the drop box? Are you aware that ballots have bar codes?

 

[Anthony60]

So, the problem is you can't trust the people you live with AND this has to occur in millions of households all over the country (except for the states that trump won)? They also have to be able to successfully forge your signature.

What difference does it make whether you know who put the ballot in the drop box? Are you aware that ballots have bar codes?

It's as if you didn't read/understand what I said and just made a random reply, not a response to what I stated.

 

[reflechissez]

It's as if you didn't read/understand what I said and just made a random reply, not a response to what I stated.

Sure.

 

[MTAtech]

Yes, it would be better to make mail in voting more secure. That's why it is interesting that the Democrats filed lawsuits to strip away any security at all. Why do you suppose they would do that? Well, the answer to that is obvious.

Sorry, just because some people can't fit voting into their schedule, that's no reason to destroy the security of an election. They can all request absentee ballots. That's not new, that's been around forever.

There is no evidence that mail in ballots are not secure. It’s quite interesting that in 2016 when 25% of ballots were mail ballots, an election where Trump won and many Republican seniors voted by mail, there was no outcry from the right side of the room, that there was a problem with mail in voting.

It‘s only when Republicans lose do they try to clamp down on the voters who happen not to vote for them. The Republican Party is fundamentally against democracy.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Over the past year, Mr. Trump faced ridicule when he threatened to "go to court" in response to being impeached. He was ridiculed because the USA Constitution gives the House "sole" power of impeachment. The 'system' doesn't permit the courts to review that decision by the House of Representatives.

We also all know that federal law is supreme over state law, and that the Constitution is supreme over both.

Well, as has been long pointed out, the USA Constitution gives the state legislature the power to decide how its electors will be selected.

Anyone who has ever pointed out, said, or written that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures power to decide how its electors will be selected and that such laws are not reviewable by the courts, and that such laws cannot be implemented by the state governments (executive) by being given rule-making authority by the legislature is either ignorant of the law or they are lying.

And please keep in mind the people you are relying on for your legal conclusions lost in court 64 ****ing times out of 65.

There are a few categories of law such as the President's pardon power, and the House's impeachment power that put severe limitations on the judicial branch's power of judicial review (and even then it's not sacrosanct), but this does not include election law or the Electors clause in the Constitution.

I encourage you to read the following court decisions:

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ET AL. (decided by the U.S. Supreme Court)

Smiley v. Holm (decided by the U.S. Supreme Court)

TRUMP The WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. (Judge Ludwig's opinion)

Like with impeachment, the issue isn't whether the 'system' authorizes the Pennsylvania courts to rule upon Pennsylvania law. The issue is whether the Pennsylvania courts can overturn a law written by the legislature, and based upon a power specifically granted to the state legislature by the USA Constitution.

The answer is yes.

Pennsylvania courts can overturn a law written by the legislature, despite your faulty reading of the Electors clause in the Constitution.

And if you don't believe me set aside time to read the following court decisions:

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ET AL. (decided by the U.S. Supreme Court)

Smiley v. Holm (decided by the U.S. Supreme Court)

TRUMP The WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. (Judge Ludwig's opinion)

 

[Rawley]

Anyone who has ever pointed out, said, or written that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures power to decide how its electors will be selected and that such laws are not reviewable by the courts

You seem to be the only one flogging that straw man. No one is claiming they couldn't review the law. What is Unconstitutional is that they rewrote the law to extend the time by which ballots had to be received. They had no power to do that, That power is Constitutionally reserved to the Legislature. If they believed the law to invalid under PA law, they had the power to strike it down, but not to change the time or manner of the election. This ain't rocket science.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Its funny, you say they have the power to change election law. They have the power to make rulings regarding constitutionality, at least that is supposed to be the limit of their mandate. The times, places, and manner are restricted to legislative decisions, specifically granted as a plenary power to state legislatures.

I agree with what you're writing here. The courts are restricted in this manner, but they also have the power to impose remedies and to come up with solutions when there is a constitutional issue, when two or more laws come into conflict (fixing an incongruence or contradiction in the statutes), when there is some practical or real-world obstacle, or when there is a dispute between the branches of government, and this often involves making decisions and giving actual orders not just telling the legislature to rewrite the law.

With respect to PA law there were two things that compelled the PA Supreme Court to make its decision

Tell me, when was the last time a state Supreme Court decided they would change established legislative rules regarding times, places, and manner of an election?

PA did it. I posted this two times previously in this thread. I guess you didn't read it. I sincerely hope you read it this time:


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”)).

Are you actually for State Supreme Courts deciding how elections are held and eliminating that power from legislatures? Because that is what you are advocating.

I think the best response to this question is the one I wrote above. The state Supreme Courts have the power to change how elections are held under certain very limited constraints. They can't just change things willy nilly. There has to be a good reason. For example, is the law unconstitutional, is there some other statute that is contradicting another, is some specific action the executive is engaging in in compliance with the law, etc. Sometimes there is a dispute as to how things should be done and it's at the courts where we resolve those disputes.

 

[Anthony60]

There is no evidence that mail in ballots are not secure. It’s quite interesting that in 2016 when 25% of ballots were mail ballots, an election where Trump won and many Republican seniors voted by mail, there was no outcry from the right side of the room, that there was a problem with mail in voting.

It‘s only when Republicans lose do they try to clamp down on the voters who happen not to vote for them. The Republican Party is fundamentally against democracy.

That's a pretty empty post. Try to make an argument or a point, otherwise, don't bother me with this garbage.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I agree with what you're writing here. The courts are restricted in this manner, but they also have the power to impose remedies and to come up with solutions when there is a constitutional issue, when two or more laws come into conflict (fixing an incongruence or contradiction in the statutes), when there is some practical or real-world obstacle, or when there is a dispute between the branches of government, and this often involves making decisions and giving actual orders not just telling the legislature to rewrite the law.

With respect to PA law there were two things that compelled the PA Supreme Court to make its decision



PA did it. I posted this two times previously in this thread. I guess you didn't read it. I sincerely hope you read it this time:


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”)).



I think the best response to this question is the one I wrote above. The state Supreme Courts have the power to change how elections are held under certain very limited constraints. They can't just change things willy nilly. There has to be a good reason. For example, is the law unconstitutional, is there some other statute that is contradicting another, is some specific action the executive is engaging in in compliance with the law, etc. Sometimes there is a dispute as to how things should be done and it's at the courts where we resolve those disputes.

No, there isn't ever a very good reason because it becomes the precedent and it becomes easier on each subsequent change. It is now undeniably easier for any state SC to change election criteria when before it was the bailiwick of the state legislatures almost exclusively.

It is a terrible precedent.

 

[Athanasius68]

Anyone who has ever pointed out, said, or written that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures power to decide how its electors will be selected and that such laws are not reviewable by the courts, and that such laws cannot be implemented by the state governments (executive) by being given rule-making authority by the legislature is either ignorant of the law or they are lying.

In the Pennsylvania situation, it had nothing to do with the legislature granting power to the courts.
It had to do with the state legislature directing how the vote was to occur, and the courts directly countermanding this.

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ET AL. (decided by the U.S. Supreme Court)

A bad decision. It removed redistricting power from the people's elected representatives.

Smiley v. Holm

(decided by the U.S. Supreme Court)

Not on point-- the issue in PA are the courts, not the executive.

TRUMP The WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. (Judge Ludwig's opinion)

Again, same issue as with Smiley.[/QUOTE]