Thread: PA law makers may end illegal no-excuse mail in voting which poisoned 2020 election

.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT which indicates The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77. is un-constitutional.



CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR

Filed: November 28, 2020


"I agree with the majority that injunctive relief restraining certification of the votes of Pennsylvanians cast in the 2020 general election should not have been granted and is unavailable in the present circumstances. As the majority relates, there has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime created by Act 77 to warrant judicial consideration of the extreme and untenable remedies proposed by Appellees.1 Accordingly, I join the per curiam Order to the extent that it vacates the preliminary injunction implemented by the Commonwealth Court.2”

”That said, there is a component of Appellees’ original complaint, filed in the Commonwealth Court, which seeks declaratory relief and is unresolved by the above remedial assessment. Additionally, I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme." 3”

“One of Appellants’ main responses is that the citizenry, and perhaps future generations, are forever bound by the Legislature’s decision to insert, into Act 77 itself, a 180-day time restriction curtailing challenges to the substantive import of the enactment. See Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, §13(3). However, I find this assessment to be substantially problematic.4 Further, as Appellees observe, ongoing amendments to an unconstitutional enactment so insulated from judicial review may have a compounding effect by exacerbating the disparity between what the Constitution requires and the law as it is being enforced. Thus, Appellees raise a colorable challenge to the viability of this sort of limitation, which can result in effectively amending the Constitution via means other those which the charter itself sanctions. See PA. CONST., art. XI (Amendments).”

“To the degree that Appellees wish to pursue this challenge in the ordinary course, upon the realization that their proposed injunctive remedies will be considered no further, I would allow them to do so in the Commonwealth Court upon a remand. In this regard, relative to the declaratory component of the request for relief, I also would not invoke the doctrine of laches, since the present challenge arises in the first election cycle in which no-excuse mail-in voting has been utilized. Moreover, “laches and prejudice can never be permitted to amend the Constitution.” Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38, 47, 550 A.2d 184, 188 [1988].”

“Consistent with my position throughout this election cycle, I believe that, to the extent possible, we should apply more ordinary and orderly methods of judicial consideration, since far too much nuance is lost by treating every election matter as exigent and worthy of this Court’s immediate resolution. In this respect, I would honor the Commonwealth Court’s traditional role as the court of original and original appellate jurisdiction for most election matters. Finally, I am decidedly against yet another award of extraordinary jurisdiction at the Secretary’s behest.”

Justice Mundy joins this Concurring and Dissenting Statement."

JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

PA's Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, which allowed no-excuse ballots, is unconstitutional. Here is why!




Clause 1 of Article VII of PA’s Constitution declares:


“Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.”


And, Section 14 of Article VII was enacted which is titled:


§ 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.


As anyone can see, Section 14 provides two, and only two ways by which a qualified elector may cast his or her vote in an election:


(1) by submitting his or her vote in propria persona at the polling place on election day; and

(2) by submitting an absentee ballot, but only if the qualified voter satisfies one of the conditions under which absentee voting is authorized as outlined above in “Absentee voting”.


The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, which legislatively attempts to fundamentally change and expand allowable conditions for Pennsylvania's "Absentee Voting" and permitting no-excuse mail-in voting without amending Pennsylvania’s Constitution, is a clear Violation of PA’s Constitution ___ Clause 1 of Article VII, § 14. Absentee voting.


The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 is a legislative attempt to fundamentally change Pennsylvania’s voting system, permitting no-excuse mail-in voting, without amending Pennsylvania’s Constitution!


JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

All seven states who cheated need to expose the voter fraud information before unelected Biden - Harris decimate your entire state through banning fracking, high taxes, more regulations, flooding your neighborhoods with refugees, illegal aliens, asylum liars and more foreign work visas!

In one week Biden has wiped out thousands of jobs, opened our borders, giving billions away to the UN, WHO, Paris Climate Accord, further destroying our healthcare, and this is only the beginning!

Now for the taxpayers to pay for the Democrat run states they ran into the ground. The costs are astronomical.

So, as it turns out,

Court throws Pennsylvania's mail-in voting law into doubt | AP News

"In Friday’s decision, the three Republican judges agreed with Republican challengers — including 11 Republican lawmakers who actually voted for the law — and ruled that no-excuse mail-in voting is prohibited under the state constitution, until the constitution is changed to allow it."


namely Article VII, §§ 1 and 4 as I have been arguing.

JWK

Originally Posted by Beezer

All seven states who cheated need to expose the voter fraud information before unelected Biden - Harris decimate your entire state through banning fracking, high taxes, more regulations, flooding your neighborhoods with refugees, illegal aliens, asylum liars and more foreign work visas!

In one week Biden has wiped out thousands of jobs, opened our borders, giving billions away to the UN, WHO, Paris Climate Accord, further destroying our healthcare, and this is only the beginning!

Now for the taxpayers to pay for the Democrat run states they ran into the ground. The costs are astronomical.

And that is one reason why we need to make certain we have honest elections. The simple truth is, the allowance for no-excuse mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania opened the door for massive corruption in the election. And now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may very well overturn the lower court's ruling which struck down no-excuse mail-in voting.

In regard to the PA Supreme Court upholding the legislatively adopted allowance for no-excuse mail-in ballots, it would be tantamount to declaring the people no longer have a say in determining the provisions of the State's Constitution. Keep in mind the PA Legislature adopted the allowance of no-excuse mail-in ballots, and that allowance arbitrarily erases the constitutional limitations which an elector must meet to use such a ballot. In regard to this specific question, the following is what Judge Emerita wrote in the Court's OPINION AND DISSENTING OPINION which struck down no-excuse mail-in voting:

“No-excuse mail-in voting makes the exercise of the franchise more convenient and has been used four times in the history of Pennsylvania. Approximately 1.38 million voters have expressed their interest in voting by mail permanently. If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end the Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting can “be placed upon our statute books.” Lancaster City, 126 A. at 201. For these reasons, we grant summary relief to McLinko and declare that Act 77 violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, PA. CONST. art. VII, §1. We deny the Acting Secretary’s application for summary relief on the procedural and substantive grounds proffered therein.”

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

Mail in voting ballots should have a Serial Number on them and a Fingerprint on file to match the ballot when counting it.

I am for a fingerprint match for all voting, with Voter ID, and Serial Numbers on our personal ballots with tracking.

If we can track millions of packages sent all over the world every day, we can track our vote.

Originally Posted by Beezer

Mail in voting ballots should have a Serial Number on them and a Fingerprint on file to match the ballot when counting it.

I am for a fingerprint match for all voting, with Voter ID, and Serial Numbers on our personal ballots with tracking.

If we can track millions of packages sent all over the world every day, we can track our vote.

If a fingerprint is to be used, I would suggest that every election cycle a different fingerprint should be used to obtain the ballot.
.

Aside from that, vote by mail does open the door to all kinds of imaginative cheating. If it is allowed, it should be restricted to those who are physically unable to get to a poll to vote.
.


.
.



JWK

.

Surprise! mail-in ballots did allow for ballot harvesting in Georgia
.


see: Georgia opens investigation into ballot harvesting claims – something that’s totally illegal in the state
.
.
Also see:





JWK

Why are there so many who want no-excuse mail-in voting when even Jimmy Carter's Commission pointed out mail-in voting increases the opportunity for cheating and abuse?

JWK

See Mail-in voting: Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear arguments (wtae.com)

Feb 2, 2022


"HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) —
Pennsylvania’s highest court said Wednesday that it will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s expansive 2-year-old mail-in voting law, whose fate is in doubt after a lower court ruled the law violates the state constitution.


The state Supreme Court said it will hear oral arguments at its March 8 session in Harrisburg. Written briefs are due before then."


The fact is, the Pennsylvania Legislature had no authority to do what it did, nor does PA’s Supreme Court have the authority to make the constitution mean what it believes it should mean.


The PA Constitution is very clear on how the Constitution may be amended, CLICK HERE



The qualified electors of the Commonwealth have the final say on agreeing or rejecting proposed amendments to their Constitution.



As Justice Hugo L. Black emphatically stated: “The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” ___ ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)