They are grasping at straws, trying to avoid the constitutionality issue because it is obviously detrimental to their partisan interests. Laches is a defense to the equitable relief sought by petitioners. It is mostly well supported in cases where evidence would be destroyed or witnesses no longer found due to the passage of time. Obviously, that is not the case here. This is an ongoing unconstitutional election law with ramifications now and in the future.
Moreover, if petitioners had filed earlier, their case for standing may be faulty due to it resting on an expectation of future injury the court may find too speculative. The fact that they filed the very day after the election and well before certification of the results IMO weighs in petitioners' favor; it shows an impetus to be as timely as possible once an injury was actually suffered.
This. So much this. This is the towering height of intellect that is the PA Supreme Court.
No, SCOTUS would laugh and mock the PA State Supreme Court for its errant application of laches. After that, it will get interesting. The Court could go rather far with the opinion but they may remand with more limited instruction. We'll have to wait and see. No doubt SCOTUS has been expecting this as case to come their way for some time now.
This action started in state court. It need not proceed to any federal court but the Supreme Court upon SCOTUS' grant of certiorari.
You are confused. This was a PA State Supreme Court ruling, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS is up next.
You are confused. This was a PA State Supreme Court ruling, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS is up next.
You are confused. This was a PA State Supreme Court ruling, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS is up next.
Actually, it's what I wanted to see happen. The uncertainty has been removed here; the court went with laches. This can go to SCOTUS without a problem. It's going to be an opinion well worth reading and one for the history books.
Agreed. IMO PA is basically driven by the Kelly, Parnell, et al. vs Commonwealth case. It is the state Constitutional law challenge against the lack of an amendment to enable Act 77's mass mail-in balloting. IDK about Arizona. Hoping a pede out there can chime in with the status. Wiscy looks like it will be driven not by recount but by auditing out the faulty "indefinitely confined" status ballots.
The legislature delegated the power to the secretary of state in an act from 1938. The present proposed resolution is to effectuate a reversal of that delegation of authority.
Edit: Note also, neither a governor's veto nor judicial review at the state level can interfere or overturn this resolution of the legislature, as it is a matter of Constitutional power afforded only to the legislature per Article 2, Sec 1, cl 2.
The resolution effectuates the legislature's reclamation of its power to name electors from the secretary of state, to whom the legislature delegated such power by an act in 1938. This was commonly done in many states around that time. The decision to name electors would follow this resolution at some further point in time, probably after litigation is resolved, specifically the state court case challenging Act 77's introduction of mass mail-in ballots which may be void due to the legislature's failure to complete the state constitutional amendment process.
The power to name electors is specifically provided to the state legislatures via Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Neither the state supreme court nor the state executive branch has any authority over this power belonging to the state legislature.
Poland's reputation as steadfast and resolute against immense adversity, combined with the meme power of winged hussars and the Witcher getting into broader pop culture is building up the soft power of the country in a way that was unimaginable even 20-30 years ago. I hope that the tendency within the culture to self-criticize, which is healthy for the most part, does not go to excess and that there develops the reasonable self-confidence sufficient for Poland to play a pro-active role for its own sake and also as an increasingly important ally to the US in Europe. All the best.
Agreed. Wiscy is just going to flip by enforcing their election procedures via audit. PA realistically requires a state constitutional case to play out (Kelly, Parnell, et al. vs. Commonwealth) and the legislature to take back the right to assign electors before the SoS can pull off more shenanigans. TBH, Nevada and Arizona appear simpler than PA at the moment, but maybe some pedes from out there can correct me on that. Georgia and Michigan are in the same litigious fraud category and are the hardest to flip as a result IMO.
This is incorrect. The PA legislature did pass an act 77 amendment to create this "mail in ballot," separate and distinct from absentee ballots in PA. However, it failed to follow the PA constitutional amendment process. The state supreme court and secretary of state have created other issues, but they are not a part of this case and are indeed overshadowed by it.
Nope. There are about 4-5 seats in eastern PA that could flip if mail in ballots are unconstitutional in PA.
It is politically and legally optimal that the PA legislature pass the resolution to recall the power to appoint electors from the secretary of state, but then wait until this particular case is fully resolved before actually assigning electors.
That's a separate issue. This matter was started by the legislature amending Act 77. There are issues with what the court did, but it is small peanuts in comparison to this matter.
She is one of the named respondents in this case. I wouldn't call anything a slam dunk, but I am a bit giddy about this case. It really is very, very interesting, and potentially historic.
No. This is a state court case. Scotus has no jurisdiction over it, at least for now. We will see what the pa state supreme court does with it. Could create a federal issue in their effort to twist the outcome.
Pay attention to the PA State Court case involving Parnell and Kelly, among others. It may result in the unconstitutionality of mail-in ballots (Act 77) in PA. That affects every single down-ballot race, and would flip several additional house seats from D to R.
Great list, but you included "Philadelphia" and "Pennsylvania." Might wanna edit out the former.
The Kelly, Parnell case in the State courts is really encouraging though. It is the case that has resulted in the preliminary injunction against certification in the state, so it has already been the most significant case in PA.
Eventually, we could see invalidation of all mail-in ballots in PA as unconstitutional. Consider the impact not just for the Presidency, but for every single down-ballot race in the state. That's a far more impactful remedy than just having the legislature assign electors for the President. It's also more palatable because it avoids any disenfranchisement of the electorate.
Pray he does. It creates a Constitutional issue for SCOTUS. Article 2, clause 2.
I also read the memorandum opinion. That excerpt you quoted above struck me as the Judge tipping off the legislature, hey guys, hold your horses, you're gonna win this so don't jump the gun and start assigning electors before that. Better to toss out the unconstitutional ballots and technically disenfranchise 0 voters judicially rather than disenfranchise all of them by premature legislative assignment of electors.
When they are up for re-election, at a minimum.