33
posted ago by owlcreekbridge ago by owlcreekbridge +33 / -0

"Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they've delayed too long. The result of the court's gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged"

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1333909505869017090/photo/1

Comments (0)
sorted by: