They talk about the extra ordinary provisions due to Covid. They go on to reference:
(“[T]he Election Code does not impose a signature-comparison requirement for mail-in and absentee ballots.”).
So their argument is basically: 'We don't have to validate signatures because we changed the law so we didn't have to.' (Me paraphrasing)
Correct me if I'm wrong, can't that requirement only be changed by an amendment to the State's constitution?
they are proving Texas' case with their claim of disenfranchisement
comedy gold here folks!!!
Sounds like a long-winded way of saying I'm right. Difference being, The State Supreme Court can only change that requirement if they find it in anyway violates the existing constitutional provisions.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
Pretty sure that's what PA's constitution says.
It must be voted on by the people, which it wasn't
Only the State legislature has the Constitutional authority to set election rules. They are just throwing out tons of word vomit in a foolish attempt to bury the main point.
Correct. They would need to amend PA's constitution to remove the signature requirement, which they didn't.
Basically Pennsylvania is a banana commonwealth
Did the PA response prove their point with that meme "Nothing in the constitution matters when there is a virus with a 99.9% recover rate"
Only an Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can change the election laws.
This did not happen.
Ergo, this argument from PA is moot
So sorry, now award all electors to GEOTUS and lets get on with this shall we.
I'm just a lowly graphic designer, and I can see the conflict just casually glossing through it while F5'ing .win.