the case is not about fraud but about the mail in ballots not being against the PA constitution. This will go to the state Supreme Court where it will be reversed. Then off to the US Supreme Court which I do not believe they will want to get involved in state matters. Even the conservative judges believe in states rights. The liberal activist judges will agree when it supports their cause.
The opinion did not give the power to legislators to choose electors. A preliminary injunction was issued to maintain the status quo and keep the Secretary of State from taking further steps to certify pending a full hearing in this case. The judge did say in her ruling that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success of showing that the law passed that allowed absentee (mail in) ballots without a specific reason the voter couldn’t vote in person was not valid. The state constitution clearly says absentee votes are only allowed in these specific circumstances and they only passed legislation allowing absentee for anyone who wants a mail in ballot but did not amend the state constitution.
That’s huge if true
She ruled that the already existing preliminary injunction should stand.
additionally she noted
"Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed."
what exactly does this mean though ELI5
the case is not about fraud but about the mail in ballots not being against the PA constitution. This will go to the state Supreme Court where it will be reversed. Then off to the US Supreme Court which I do not believe they will want to get involved in state matters. Even the conservative judges believe in states rights. The liberal activist judges will agree when it supports their cause.
What’s the make up of the PA Supreme Court like?
Right so could SCOTUS say something like: go back to the state court or something?
yes
Trump hasn't won the court case yet, but it appears to the judge that they will. Thus the preliminary junction will stand in anticipation of the win.
Found someone with a brain in that state
The opinion did not give the power to legislators to choose electors. A preliminary injunction was issued to maintain the status quo and keep the Secretary of State from taking further steps to certify pending a full hearing in this case. The judge did say in her ruling that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success of showing that the law passed that allowed absentee (mail in) ballots without a specific reason the voter couldn’t vote in person was not valid. The state constitution clearly says absentee votes are only allowed in these specific circumstances and they only passed legislation allowing absentee for anyone who wants a mail in ballot but did not amend the state constitution.