I am not persuaded by the may/shall argument in the slightest. Do you really believe they are arguing honestly when they say the revision from may to shall somehow means that shall establishes a floor of what the legislature can do which they can go beyond?? English is my native language so I happen to know that if someone changes something to shall (i.e. must), they are strengthening the language to make sure people know not to violate this clause. May gives permission. Shall is a command.
Furthermore, SCOTUS never ruled on the merits and the PA Supreme Court failed to rule on the merits as well. The only judge in PA that ever ruled on merits (not just on procedural crap like mootness, ripeness, laches, etc) said that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on those merits.
Update: And by the way, check out the Mathews v. Paynter case they cite for their brilliant may/shall argument. It's a laughable comparison. Whereas in that case a clause stipulating a list of what offenses "shall be subject to disciplinary action" was argued to not be an exhaustive or exclusive list, quite clearly the intent of Article VII, section 14 of the PA constitution is to list all of the reasons one can vote absentee. These people are not honest in their arguments.
I am not persuaded by the may/shall argument in the slightest. Do you really believe they are arguing honestly when they say the revision from may to shall somehow means that shall establishes a floor of what the legislature can do which they can go beyond?? English is my native language so I happen to know that if someone changes something to shall (i.e. must), they are strengthening the language to make sure people know not to violate this clause. May gives permission. Shall is a command.
Furthermore, SCOTUS never ruled on the merits and the PA Supreme Court failed to rule on the merits as well. The only judge in PA that ever ruled on merits (not just on procedural crap like mootness, ripeness, laches, etc) said that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on those merits.