This will go to the USSC

[Harpy Eagle]

Don't know we will see but it seems the writers meant that unless you can't show up to the polls for the listed reasons that was your only way to vote. Not sure why you just don't amend the Constitution as the bill had enough support in both Houses. Never leave the game up to the officials if you can help it.

Laziness most likely, and now of course those that voted for it are the very ones suing to make it go away because they are still pissed that Trump lost their state.

 

[jc456]

That’s where the former 1-term president keeps it, no?

Carter?

 

[WorldWatcher]

1 and 3 I would be fine with 2 I would take issue with because there's no limiting factor. There are currently 28 ongoing national emergencies. Basically, we exist in a perpetual state of national emergency.

They should probably just amend the Constitution if they want mail in voting.

OK.

Or the legislature could, under § 4 define that mail-in voting is different then absentee voting under their authority to determine the method of casting ballots. That would clarify that mail-in voting is a different animal than absentee voting.

WW

 

[jc456]

OK.

Or the legislature could, under § 4 define that mail-in voting is different then absentee voting under their authority to determine the method of casting ballots. That would clarify that mail-in voting is a different animal than absentee voting.

WW

How about supporting the law one person one vote? Mail in balloting doesn’t provide chain of custody to support that law.

 

[Couchpotato]

OK.

Or the legislature could, under § 4 define that mail-in voting is different then absentee voting under their authority to determine the method of casting ballots. That would clarify that mail-in voting is a different animal than absentee voting.

WW

yeah. It seems to me from reading it that the writer's intent was that unless there was some reason on their list that you couldn't make it to an in-person polling station that was your way of voting. To me writ large mail in voting is asking for problems but what do I know. I just don't know how you stop me voting for my mother who's invalid and mailing it in. Or going out and collecting voting forms from people and mailing it in on their behalf. There just seems to be way too many easy ways to cheat that system and if you give politicians a way to cheat, a decent percentage will. If we need to expand polling hours/days, Im good with that. If we need to provide onsite childcare so people can go in and take care of their voting business without being distracted by their kids? Im good. More polling places so it's easier for people to vote. On board. Buses to get people from their houses to the polling places. Im down. I just dont think laziness is a reason to not vote in person

 

[jc456]

yeah. It seems to me from reading it that the writer's intent was that unless there was some reason on their list that you couldn't make it to an in-person polling station that was your way of voting. To me writ large mail in voting is asking for problems but what do I know. I just don't know how you stop me voting for my mother who's invalid and mailing it in. Or going out and collecting voting forms from people and mailing it in on their behalf. There just seems to be way too many easy ways to cheat that system and if you give politicians a way to cheat, a decent percentage will.

All someone needs is the voting register and a list of dead people and badda bing

 

[task0778]

yeah. It seems to me from reading it that the writer's intent was that unless there was some reason on their list that you couldn't make it to an in-person polling station that was your way of voting. To me writ large mail in voting is asking for problems but what do I know. I just don't know how you stop me voting for my mother who's invalid and mailing it in. Or going out and collecting voting forms from people and mailing it in on their behalf. There just seems to be way too many easy ways to cheat that system and if you give politicians a way to cheat, a decent percentage will.

Is your mom a registered voter?

Does she have an acceptable ID?

Did she sign her ballot envelope?

Did you mail it in prior to the deadline?

If the answer to all those questions is yes, then IMHO her ballot should be counted. If the answer is NO to any 1 or more of those questions, then I think her ballot should not be counted.


"if you give politicians a way to cheat, a decent percentage will"

Some politicians will cheat whether you give them a way to do it or not. IOW, they will ignore existing law under the guise of an emergency or create their own law even if it contradicts their state Constitution.

Now - some states have certain requirements to be met before a mail-in ballot is issued. Some states have a no-excuse law that says it doesn't matter why you want to vote by mail-in, that is your right and your decision. I presume those states do have some sort of residency and meet whatever requirements that state deems necessary. But here's the deal with respect to PA - either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of men that change the laws or ignore them if it is convenient, even if a pandemic is ongoing. Especially if we are giving our candidate a better chance of winning.

Instead of opening up the mail-in option in defiance of existing law, could they not have extended early voting by a month or whatever to give everybody ample opportunity to cast their ballot? Do they not have restrictions on who gets to vote by mail, and did they decide to circumvent those restrictions? I don't know all the facts, but it smells like certain people wanted Trump to lose so they used the pandemic to find the best ways to give Biden a better chance of winning their state.


Anybody here from PA? WTF happened with Act 77, and were existing laws and restrictions ignored?

 

[FA_Q2]

Is the argument that mail in voting in and of itself violates the PA constitution or the way in which mail in voting was changed for COVID without the Legislature? If it's the latter and not the former.

From Art II of the US Constitution

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

If the Legislature didn't enact the change to the way the State selected it's electors doesnt that violate the US Constitution and thus give standing in SCOTUS?

The state legislators did pass act 77.

Validate the claim that they did not.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't think there's a problem with the law only if they applied it to the 2019 Presidential election which is what the case is about isnt it? Unfortunately it doesnt say in the artice which part of the PA constitution the Judges felt it violated.

No, it says in the ruling though. I posted the exact language of the section the judge said it violated in its entirety.

And there is noting there that makes any sense. The judge, so far, looks like he is trying to legislate from the bench.

 

[FA_Q2]

yeah. It seems to me from reading it that the writer's intent was that unless there was some reason on their list that you couldn't make it to an in-person polling station that was your way of voting. To me writ large mail in voting is asking for problems but what do I know. I just don't know how you stop me voting for my mother who's invalid and mailing it in. Or going out and collecting voting forms from people and mailing it in on their behalf. There just seems to be way too many easy ways to cheat that system and if you give politicians a way to cheat, a decent percentage will. If we need to expand polling hours/days, Im good with that. If we need to provide onsite childcare so people can go in and take care of their voting business without being distracted by their kids? Im good. More polling places so it's easier for people to vote. On board. Buses to get people from their houses to the polling places. Im down. I just dont think laziness is a reason to not vote in person

The security of the election itself really is not the question in this case though. That is a separate issue. You may think that the law should not have been passed. You may think that it will lead to much more corruption of the system. The question before the court, however, was if the law violated the state constitution. And it is clear that it does not at this point.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Constitution of Pennsylvania

www.legis.state.pa.us

§ 14. Absentee voting.
(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
municipality 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.
(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.
(Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)

1967 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
former section 19 to present section 14.
1957 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
14 (formerly section 19).

They are saying that no excuse mail in voting is unconstitutional based on this article. Which seems real. It would appear they would need to amend the Constitution.

Why does it seem real?

How does no excuse mail in voting violate the above? Specifically.

If anything, no excuse mail in voting fulfills those requirements. The above sets NO LIMIT on absentee balloting, just requires the legislators to provide absentee balloting in specific cases.

All mail in voting achieves that.

That would also likely be the reason that the judge did NOT rule it violated that stricture.

 

[Couchpotato]

Why does it seem real?

How does no excuse mail in voting violate the above? Specifically.

If anything, no excuse mail in voting fulfills those requirements. The above sets NO LIMIT on absentee balloting, just requires the legislators to provide absentee balloting in specific cases.

All mail in voting achieves that.

That would also likely be the reason that the judge did NOT rule it violated that stricture.

Well it says very specifically the reason's allowed for absentee voting. Unless you are going to parse the terms mail in and absentee which some are doing but if they are the same then the law for sure violates the Constitution. Look they had the votes to amend the Constitution they should have just done that.

 

[Couchpotato]

The security of the election itself really is not the question in this case though. That is a separate issue. You may think that the law should not have been passed. You may think that it will lead to much more corruption of the system. The question before the court, however, was if the law violated the state constitution. And it is clear that it does not at this point.

Three judges in PA disagree with you.

 

[Couchpotato]

Is your mom a registered voter?

Does she have an acceptable ID?

Did she sign her ballot envelope?

Did you mail it in prior to the deadline?

If the answer to all those questions is yes, then IMHO her ballot should be counted. If the answer is NO to any 1 or more of those questions, then I think her ballot should not be counted.


"if you give politicians a way to cheat, a decent percentage will"

Some politicians will cheat whether you give them a way to do it or not. IOW, they will ignore existing law under the guise of an emergency or create their own law even if it contradicts their state Constitution.

Now - some states have certain requirements to be met before a mail-in ballot is issued. Some states have a no-excuse law that says it doesn't matter why you want to vote by mail-in, that is your right and your decision. I presume those states do have some sort of residency and meet whatever requirements that state deems necessary. But here's the deal with respect to PA - either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of men that change the laws or ignore them if it is convenient, even if a pandemic is ongoing. Especially if we are giving our candidate a better chance of winning.

Instead of opening up the mail-in option in defiance of existing law, could they not have extended early voting by a month or whatever to give everybody ample opportunity to cast their ballot? Do they not have restrictions on who gets to vote by mail, and did they decide to circumvent those restrictions? I don't know all the facts, but it smells like certain people wanted Trump to lose so they used the pandemic to find the best ways to give Biden a better chance of winning their state.


Anybody here from PA? WTF happened with Act 77, and were existing laws and restrictions ignored?

What's to stop me for doing all those things for her? And how would anyone ever know that I did?

 

[eagle7-31]

You never seem to be sure of anything.

this so called law went to the USSC in 2020 because the demrats wanted to get rid of the safeguards and USSC in a 4 4 vote with fing Roberts voting with dems threw out the safe guards and we had mess.

 

[task0778]

What's to stop me for doing all those things for her? And how would anyone ever know that I did?

Well, if she ain't a registered voter, or if she doesn't have an acceptable ID, or the ballot envelope wasn't signed, or if the ballot wasn't sent before the deadline than that ought to stop you. I doubt anyone would know what you did unless you bragged about it, nor is it likely that anyone could prove it. All those requirements and more are designed to reduce fraud and IMHO ought to be implemented. Nobody's right to vote has to be infringed, it ain't like there isn't a boatload of time to get that stuff done before the election comes around.

You know, it's funny in this day and age of computerization that we don't have a suite of computers and interfaces with systems like DMV, SSA, IRS, CMS, and so on to validate the individual's legal status to vote. How the hell do you live in this country without any kind of ID, assuming you are a citizen? You gotta have an ID to do damn near everything these days anyway, and why isn't the democratic party more focused on efforts to provide free IDs to anyone who doesn't have one instead of bitching about that req't?

 

[Couchpotato]

Well, if she ain't a registered voter, or if she doesn't have an acceptable ID, or the ballot envelope wasn't signed, or if the ballot wasn't sent before the deadline than that ought to stop you. I doubt anyone would know what you did unless you bragged about it, nor is it likely that anyone could prove it. All those requirements and more are designed to reduce fraud and IMHO ought to be implemented. Nobody's right to vote has to be infringed, it ain't like there isn't a boatload of time to get that stuff done before the election comes around.

You know, it's funny in this day and age of computerization that we don't have a suite of computers and interfaces with systems like DMV, SSA, IRS, CMS, and so on to validate the individual's legal status to vote. How the hell do you live in this country without any kind of ID, assuming you are a citizen? You gotta have an ID to do damn near everything these days anyway, and why isn't the democratic party more focused on efforts to provide free IDs to anyone who doesn't have one instead of bitching about that req't?

IDs are racist. But seriously. What’s to stop me from registering her signing her envelope and mailing it. Using her ID to verify all that. what’s the mechanism to stop that? What would be the indication to the election board to even check?

 

[task0778]

IDs are racist

Absolute bullshit. Care to elaborate on how requiring an ID to vote is racist?

 

[Couchpotato]

Absolute bullshit. Care to elaborate on how requiring an ID to vote is racist?

It was a joke. Jeez. Calm down Clarence.

 

[otto105]

Carter?

Lame, very lame.