He lives in PA and he knows about the legislature argument. The Republican Legislature in PA passed the laws allowing mail-in ballots in 2019. They later claimed it was unconstitutional (at the state level) but the constitution doesn't actually prohibit it. It's frustrating. I've tried to read the US Supreme Court briefs related to the case and it's too complicated for me to understand.
Title 77 is unconstitutional under the PA state constitution. This was the main argument of Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell's case. Also, even if it were constitutional, the liberal PA Supreme Court, made rulings which violated Title 77. See this archived article from Alexander Macris who is of course now removed from Substack.
Yes, that was Kelly's claim, but it was not valid. Title 77 defines who must be allowed to use mail-in ballots. It doesn't limit who can be allowed to use mail-in ballots. (This is from the state's response to Kelly's U.S. Supreme Court complaint). I'm still researching the response related to the PA Supreme Court's decisions. Those were the arguments that were too complicated for me to understand. Unfortunately, AFAICT, the number of votes potentially affected by the PA Supreme Court decisions alone wouldn't be enough for Trump to win the state.
Read pages 16-19 of the case I linked. You are just asserting the claim "was not valid" but it's in black and white in the PA constitution. If they wanted to change they constitution, they would have required all kinds of things such as newspaper ads to make sure the public knows etc. However, they did none of that so Title 77 is constitutionally invalid.
Honestly this "brother in law" thing is starting to sound like bullshit to me and you are likely just another new account shill.
Also the "not enough votes" argument is also nonsense. Read the TX SCOTUS case. Read the Navarro Reports. There are more than enough votes in question in PA.
He lives in PA and he knows about the legislature argument. The Republican Legislature in PA passed the laws allowing mail-in ballots in 2019. They later claimed it was unconstitutional (at the state level) but the constitution doesn't actually prohibit it. It's frustrating. I've tried to read the US Supreme Court briefs related to the case and it's too complicated for me to understand.
Title 77 is unconstitutional under the PA state constitution. This was the main argument of Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell's case. Also, even if it were constitutional, the liberal PA Supreme Court, made rulings which violated Title 77. See this archived article from Alexander Macris who is of course now removed from Substack.
Yes, that was Kelly's claim, but it was not valid. Title 77 defines who must be allowed to use mail-in ballots. It doesn't limit who can be allowed to use mail-in ballots. (This is from the state's response to Kelly's U.S. Supreme Court complaint). I'm still researching the response related to the PA Supreme Court's decisions. Those were the arguments that were too complicated for me to understand. Unfortunately, AFAICT, the number of votes potentially affected by the PA Supreme Court decisions alone wouldn't be enough for Trump to win the state.
Read pages 16-19 of the case I linked. You are just asserting the claim "was not valid" but it's in black and white in the PA constitution. If they wanted to change they constitution, they would have required all kinds of things such as newspaper ads to make sure the public knows etc. However, they did none of that so Title 77 is constitutionally invalid.
Honestly this "brother in law" thing is starting to sound like bullshit to me and you are likely just another new account shill.
Also the "not enough votes" argument is also nonsense. Read the TX SCOTUS case. Read the Navarro Reports. There are more than enough votes in question in PA.