This will go to the USSC

[FA_Q2]

I asked you what the difference was from bush gore.

And I told you the difference.

ACT 77 DOES NOT TREAT ELECTORS DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE LAW.

Try again.

 

[busybee01]

Like?

Like the fact that there are deadlines contained in the Constitution for certification of the Presidential vote.

 

[busybee01]

This is one democrat ballot box stuffer;



Thanks to the United States Marshal Services.

There has been no evidence of that. No one has found any evidence of fraud that has changed the election. Several Republicans have been arrested for vote fraud.

 

[bendog]

Oddly, doesn't this discussion give some support to the notion hat congress should just pass uniform voter identification and vote counting for federal elections? By nature, I'm against federal intervention, but seeing the "big lie" hysteria I wouldn't be opposed anymore. Of course there's no longer any room for compromise between centrists to just have some non-invasive ID and allow voting to occur over days, and even on weekends. If we just made it a holiday, the hourly workers without paid leave would get screwed.

 

[busybee01]

False.

It violates Article I, section 4 of the Constitution by having the state court, rather than the elected legislature, determine the state election laws.

It does not. The Supreme Court has no say in this.

 

[bendog]

Like the fact that there are deadlines contained in the Constitution for certification of the Presidential vote.

And that was a concern in BvG. There was no way to get a full recount done. But the irony was that since the gop controlled the Fla legislature ... W was ultimately going to win Fla, W won. Probably more dems in Dade county tried to vote for him, but screwed up and voted for Buchanan. Just count the votes with ballot workers and state officials and be done with it. Of course now, the gop is electing Sec of States with a mandate to make sure gopers win. We'll have to see how that works out. We're turning into a banana republic for God's sake.

 

[FA_Q2]

And that was a concern in BvG. There was no way to get a full recount done. But the irony was that since the gop controlled the Fla legislature ... W was ultimately going to win Fla, W won. Probably more dems in Dade county tried to vote for him, but screwed up and voted for Buchanan. Just count the votes with ballot workers and state officials and be done with it. Of course now, the gop is electing Sec of States with a mandate to make sure gopers win. We'll have to see how that works out. We're turning into a banana republic for God's sake.

Back to the Big Lie, I see.

And they tell me it is just a republican lie.

 

[busybee01]

like? Bad ballots?

The Constitution requires that electors meet in mid-December in their respective state capitols to vote. This is why the Supreme Court shut down the counting.

 

[busybee01]

the right to one person one vote.

It violates no federal statutory or Constitutional standards.

 

[busybee01]

Why is act 77 not a violation of the equal protection clause?

Seriously?

How about you point out where it uses different standards for different people? Now you have resorted to asking me to show how it is not a violation of federal law.

Try again, WHAT FEDERAL LAW OR CONSTITUTINAL CLAUSE DOES ACT 77 VIOLATE? Actually point out where it violates said clause rather than just blankly stating random clauses.

It seems you have no idea.

It is not a violation of the equal protection clause. Any registered voter can access no-excuse mail voting.

 

[Couchpotato]

That was because Prop 8 violated the US Constitution.

In this case the that is not in play, we know that mail in voting does not violate the US Constitution.

The only question is does it violate the PA Constitution. The SCTOUS will not tell a state SC they were wrong about their own constitution, they do not have that power

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?

 

[Couchpotato]

The Constitution requires that electors meet in mid-December in their respective state capitols to vote. This is why the Supreme Court shut down the counting.

Where is that in US Constitution?

The word December only appears once in the Constitution in Art 1 sec 4 and has nothing to do with Presidential elections.

 

[BlindBoo]

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 Pa legislature vote nearly unanimously for the election law in 2019.

 

[jc456]

Don't ask me to defend the decision in BvG. But O'Connor noted that different counties and different error rates in counting votes because of different voting methods. The PA law allows equal mail in voting state wide, I think.

There's nothing unconst in the PA law. Nor is there in the GA law. jmo

nice post, thank you. I disagree, but I'll leave it there.

 

[jc456]

Like the fact that there are deadlines contained in the Constitution for certification of the Presidential vote.

not that I found.

 

[jc456]

And I told you the difference.

ACT 77 DOES NOT TREAT ELECTORS DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE LAW.

Try again.

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?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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 PA Legislature passed Act 77 which provided no-excuse mail-in voting. The measure passed with bipartisan support (meaning both GOP and DEM legislators voted to pass it.)

So the question to the PASC will be the first part of your first sentence and not the later part.

WW

 

[Couchpotato]

The Pa legislature vote nearly unanimously for the election law in 2019.

Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting

Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...

www.governor.pa.gov

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.

If they used the standards in that bill for the Nov 2019 election then they were wrong it would seem.

 

[otto105]

Bullshit! It is done all the time. Bush V. Gore is probably the most famous example.

It was filed in federal court went to the Supreme Court

 

[Couchpotato]

The PA Legislature passed Act 77 which provided no-excuse mail-in voting. The measure passed with bipartisan support (meaning both GOP and DEM legislators voted to pass it.)

So the question to the PASC will be the first part of your first sentence and not the later part.

WW

But that Bill didnt take effect until April of 2020 so.

Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting

Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...

www.governor.pa.gov

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.