The Judge expressed grave concern as to what a remedy would be if she were to rule the mail-in balloting unconstitutional, so even if she ruled for the petitioners on the merits, it’s not clear if that would change the result:
That being said, this Court is mindful that
one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the
disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the
2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would
disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election
College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors
to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for
certifying results for presidential electors. The Court agrees it would be untenable
for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if
the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a
constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the
disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election
– not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of
Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which
hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and
free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result
in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results
of a purportedly unconstitutional election.5
The Judge concluded:
For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing
This is not a final ruling on the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules.
Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together.>
It really does create a legal quandary. Probably a difficult decision for Trump's team. Do you pursue the "throw out the whole election" strategy on solid Constitutional grounds and send the election into the House (and Senate)?
Or do you pursue the "because of voter fraud, seat Trump's electors" strategy. Equally solid Constitutional grounds, but almost certainly less popular in the court of public opinion.
Can you pursue both in the same case? Powell argues for both kinds of relief in her suit for MI, but I'm not sure if that's an option here.
During the PA legislature hearing. Remedy suggested by Rudy is to throw out all the 650k Biden ballots secretly counted at 4am election night while denying GOP observers ability to observe.
This is good remedy to just throw out the fradulent ballots.
Yeah, we often point at pols chickening out, but you have to be real... politicians want cover. They don't want to generate enough anger to create a backlash that pushes them out of office. The flip side though, is that if it looks like there is a wave to ride, they'll use that as cover for appointing Trump electors.
That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors. The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.5
For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing
It really does create a legal quandary. Probably a difficult decision for Trump's team. Do you pursue the "throw out the whole election" strategy on solid Constitutional grounds and send the election into the House (and Senate)?
Or do you pursue the "because of voter fraud, seat Trump's electors" strategy. Equally solid Constitutional grounds, but almost certainly less popular in the court of public opinion.
Can you pursue both in the same case? Powell argues for both kinds of relief in her suit for MI, but I'm not sure if that's an option here.
No,this is easy for Trump team.
During the PA legislature hearing. Remedy suggested by Rudy is to throw out all the 650k Biden ballots secretly counted at 4am election night while denying GOP observers ability to observe.
This is good remedy to just throw out the fradulent ballots.
If one falls they all fall. It sets precedent
Yeah, we often point at pols chickening out, but you have to be real... politicians want cover. They don't want to generate enough anger to create a backlash that pushes them out of office. The flip side though, is that if it looks like there is a wave to ride, they'll use that as cover for appointing Trump electors.
Nice!