Is Mail-In Voting Even Legal? Dems Ignored State Lawmakers: Lawsuit Filed in PA

Republicans have filed a lawsuit in the state of Pennsylvania that could destroy the entire 2020 Presidential election, if they gain legal authority to scrutinize the process of mail in voting.

“Yesterday several Pennsylvania Republican Party officials and individual Republican voters filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief based on a claim that the legislation which adopted “no excuse” eligibility for absentee voting was an illegitimate amendment of the Pennsylvania State Constitution,” Shipewreckedcrew wrote for Red State.com.

The Complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania State Constitution requires in-person voting, and the only recognized exception to this requirement is the options reflected in Sec. 14, which were added to the Constitution via the accepted Amendment process in 1967.  Sec. 14 sets forth four specific bases for a qualified voter to cast an absentee vote under the Constitution:  1) the voter will be absent from their municipality because duties, occupation, or business needs require them to be elsewhere; 2) illness or physical disability; 3) observance of a religious holiday, and 4) due to status as a county worker.

In other words, recognizing that there was no basis in the Constitution to support “no excuse” mail-in balloting, at the same time the Pennsylvania Legislature approved Act 77, it also initiated the process for Amending Sec. 14 of the Constitution to accomplish that purpose.  However, neither Act 77 nor the simultaneously proposed amendment were ever passed by a majority vote of the Legislature in two consecutive sessions, and neither was ever approved by a majority of voters in Pennsylvania in a general election.

The heart of the lawsuit, the Democrats went around the PA state legislature:

11. Defendant the Pennsylvania General Assembly is the state legislature
    for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is comprised of the State House and
    State Senate. The General Assembly convenes in the State Capitol building in
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
12. The U.S. Constitution provides that the Legislatures of each state shall
    direct the manner for appointing electors for President and Vice President. The
    General Assembly is named as a party who would be at least partially responsible
    for implementing the relief Plaintiffs seek.
13. Defendant, the Honorable Thomas W. Wolf (hereinafter, “Governor
    Wolf”), is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal
    office address at Office of the Governor, 508 Main Capitol Building, Harrisburg,
    Pennsylvania 17120. Governor Wolf is responsible for enumerating and
    ascertaining the number of votes given for the election of presidential electors,
    causing certificates of election to be delivered to presidential electors, signing bills
    into law, issuing writs of election, and general superintendence over the executive
    branch of government.
14. Defendant, Kathy Boockvar (hereinafter, “Secretary Boockvar’),

I wrote about Democrat Lawsuits to go around the state legislature in North Carolina to expand mail in voting here:

“Democrats Changed the Laws Established by State Legislatures” Trump Lawyer Tweeted, Remember North Carolina

Here is the PA lawsuit in full:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE HONORABLE MIKE KELLY, SEAN
PARNELL, THOMAS A. FRANK, NANCY
KIERZEK, DEREK MAGEE, ROBIN SAUTER,
MICHAEL KINCAID, and WANDA LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v. Docket No. M.D. 2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
HONORABLE THOMAS W. WOLF, KATHY
BOOCKVAR,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT about DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs the Honorable Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy
Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, and Wanda Logan, hereby files the
following Complaint against defendants, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
in support thereof avers as follows:
Introduction
l. This is an action seeking a declaration that the universal mail-in ballot
provisions of a law called Act 77 (Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 (“Act
77”); see also 25 Pa.Stat. §§ 3146.6(c), 3150.16(c)) are unconstitutional and an

injunction prohibiting certification of the results of the November 3, 2020 eleInion
in Pennsylvania and/or requiring any such certification to be rescinded, and for
other appropriate relief. Act 77 is the most expansive and fundamental change to
the Pennsylvania voting code, implemented illegally, to date. Under the Act and
the mail-in ballot scheme it implements, any and all qualified electors are eligible
to vote by mail, and no justification needs to be provided. As with prior historical
attempts to illegally expand mail-in voting by statute, which have been struck
down going as far back as the Military Absentee Ballot Act of 1839, Act 77 is
another illegal attempt to override the limitations on absentee voting prescribed in
the Pennsylvania Constitution, without first following the necessary procedure to
amend the constitution to allow for the expansion.
Parties

2. Plaintiff the Honorable Mike Kelly (hereinafter “Representative
   Kelly”) is an adult individual who is a qualified registered elector residing in
   Butler County, a member of the Republican Party, and the United States
   Representative for the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Representative
   Kelly was recently re-elected to represent the 16th Congressional District, which
   includes all of Erie, Crawford, Mercer, and Lawrence counties, as well as part of
   Butler County. Representative Kelly constitutes both a “candidate” and a

“qualified elector” as those terms are defined in Election Code Section 102(a) and
(t), 25 P.S. § 2602(a) & (t). Representative Kelly brings this suit in his capacity as
a candidate for federal office and a private citizen.

2. Plaintiff Sean Parnell is an adult individual who is a registered
   qualified elector residing in Allegheny County, a member of the Republican Party,
   and a candidate for U.S. Representative for the 17th Congressional District of
   Pennsylvania, which includes all of Beaver County, and parts of Butler and
   Allegheny counties. Mr. Parnell constitutes both a “candidate” and a “qualified
   elector” as those terms are defined in Election Code Section 102(a) and (t), 25 P.S.
   § 2602(a) & (t). Mr. Parnell brings this suit in his capacity as a candidate for
   federal office and a private citizen.
3. Plaintiff Wanda Logan is an adult individual who is a registered
   qualified elector residing Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, a member of the
   Republican Party, and a candidate for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
   for the 190th district. Ms. Logan constitutes both a “candidate” and a “qualified
   elector” as those terms are defined in Election Code section 102(a) and (t), 25 P.S.
   § 2602(a) & (t). Ms. Logan brings this suit in her capacity as a candidate for state
   office and a private citizen.
4. Plaintiff Thomas A. Frank is an adult individual who is a registered

qualified elector residing in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Frank constitutes a

la
“qualified elector” as that term is defined in Election Code Section 102(t), 25 P.S.
§ 2602(t). Mr. Frank brings this suit in his capacity as a private citizen.

6. Plaintiff Nancy Kierzek is an adult individual who is a registered
   qualified elector residing in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Kierzek constitutes a
   “qualified elector” as that term is defined in Election Code Section 102(t), 25 P.S.
   § 2602(t). Ms. Kierzek brings this suit in her capacity as a private citizen.
7. Plaintiff Derek Magee is an adult individual who is a registered
   qualified elector residing in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Magee constitutes a
   “qualified elector” as that term is defined in Election Code Section 102(t), 25 P.S.
   § 2602(t). Mr. Magee brings this suit in his capacity as a private citizen.
8. Plaintiff, Michael Kincaid is an adult individual who is a registered
   qualified elector residing in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Kincaid
   constitutes a “qualified elector” as that term is defined in Election Code Section
   102(t), 25 P.S. § 2602(t). Mr. Kincaid brings this suit in his capacity as a private
   citizen.
9. Plaintiff, Robin Sauter is an adult individual who is a registered
   qualified elector residing in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Sauter constitutes a
   “qualified elector” as that term is defined in Election Code Section 102(t), 25 P.S.

§ 2602(t). Ms. Sauter brings this suit in her capacity as a private citizen.
10. Defendant the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has its capital located
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

11. Defendant the Pennsylvania General Assembly is the state legislature
    for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is comprised of the State House and
    State Senate. The General Assembly convenes in the State Capitol building in
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
12. The U.S. Constitution provides that the Legislatures of each state shall
    direct the manner for appointing electors for President and Vice President. The
    General Assembly is named as a party who would be at least partially responsible
    for implementing the relief Plaintiffs seek.
13. Defendant, the Honorable Thomas W. Wolf (hereinafter, “Governor
    Wolf”), is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal
    office address at Office of the Governor, 508 Main Capitol Building, Harrisburg,
    Pennsylvania 17120. Governor Wolf is responsible for enumerating and
    ascertaining the number of votes given for the election of presidential electors,
    causing certificates of election to be delivered to presidential electors, signing bills
    into law, issuing writs of election, and general superintendence over the executive
    branch of government.
14. Defendant, Kathy Boockvar (hereinafter, “Secretary Boockvar’), is

the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal office
Address at 302 N Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120. Secretary Boockvar is
charged with the general supervision and administration of Pennsylvania’s
elections and election laws; tabulating, computing, canvassing, and certifying the
votes cast for candidates for state and federal office; delivering to the President of
the Senate the returns for certain elections; and other related responsibilities.
Jurisdiction

15. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42
    Pa.Cons.Stat. § 761(a)(1) (“Against the Commonwealth government, including any
    officer thereof, acting in his official capacity”).

Material Facts
I. Background

16. Article VII of the Pennsylvania Constitution (“Pennsylvania
    Constitution”) provides two exclusive mechanisms by which a qualified elector
    may cast his or her vote in an election: 1) by submitting his or her vote in propria
    persona at the polling place on election day; and 2) by submitting an absentee
    ballot, but only if the qualified voter satisfies the conditions precedent to meet the
    requirements for one of the four limited, exclusive circumstances under which

absentee voting is authorized under the Pennsylvania Constitution (Art. VII, § 14).
17. Mail-in voting, in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt
by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and
permit universal, no-excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority.

18. The Pennsylvania Constitution since 1838 has required voting to be in
    propria persona (in person), “at the election” (polling place), in the county in
    which an eligible voter resides.
19. This principle has been upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in
    several cases going back to the first major attempt to expand absentee voting in
    1864.
20. Over time, exceptions to in-person voting have been added to the
    Pennsylvania Constitution through constitutional amendments, which includes
    specific exceptions for military personnel, disabled veterans, religious
    observations, and other circumstances.
21. 1967 marked the first of several recent attempts to amend the
    Pennsylvania Constitution in order to expand the exceptions for which absentee
    voting would be allowed, beyond the previously identified classes of active
    military and veterans.
22. In 1967, the legislature went through the formal procedure for

amending the Pennsylvania Constitution.
23. The 1967 amendment resulted in the addition of Article VII, Section
14, which holds the current provision outlining the limited circumstance under
which an elector is permitted to vote without being present at the polling location —
“absentee voting.” Pa. Const. Art. VII, § 14.

24. After following the constitutionally mandated procedure for properly
    amending the constitution in 1967, the legislature then enacted election code
    provisions that allowed for absentee ballots to be cast in the four (4) exclusive
    circumstances authorized under Article VII, Section 14.
25. Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution establishes the
    mandatory procedural requirements that must be strictly followed in order to
    amend the Constitution.
26. Pursuant to Article XI, Section 1, a proposed constitutional
    amendment must be approved by a majority vote of the members of both the
    Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate in two consecutive legislative
    sessions, then the proposed amendment must be published for three months ahead
    of the next general election in two newspapers in each county, and finally it must
    be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot question in the next general

election and approved by a majority of those voting on the amendment.
27. Similar to previous absentee voting legislation found to be
unconstitutional under Pennsylvania law, the legislature did not follow the
necessary procedures for amending the constitution before enacting Act 77.

28. In 2019, the legislature recognized that there was no constitutional
    authority for the no-excuse mail-in voting scheme that it desired to implement
    through Act 77, and concurrently initiated the process of proposing an amendment
    to the constitution in order to amend the constitutional provisions concerning
    absentee voting to allow for no excuse mail-in voting.
29. However, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article XI, §1,
    an amendment to the Constitution must be approved by a majority of the members
    of both the Senate and House of Representatives in two separate legislative
    sessions, then submitted as a ballot question to be voted on by the electors.
30. If, after approval by two legislative sessions, a majority of the electors
    then vote to approve the proposed constitutional amendment, only then will the
    amendment take effect.
31. Although Act 77 has the effect of attempting to amend the
    Pennsylvania Constitution, it never went through the procedural requirements for
    such an amendment and has no legal effect.
32. Neither Act 77 nor the contemporaneous proposed constitutional

amendment initiated by the legislature have been approved by a majority vote of
both the House and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions, nor has either
been submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot question and approved by a
majority vote of the citizens.

33. Despite the lack of constitutional authority to pass a universal mail-in
    voting scheme — a scheme which far eclipses any previously conscribed absentee
    voting scheme — the legislature proceeded to implement Act 77 anyway, in direct
    contravention of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
34. Put differently, the legislature first recognized their constitutional
    constraints and the need to amend the constitution in order to enact mail-in voting,
    sought to amend the constitution to lawfully allow for the legislation they intended
    to pass, and subsequently abandoned their efforts to comply with the constitution
    and instead enacted Act 77 irrespective of their actual knowledge that they lacked
    the legal authority to do so unless and until the proposed constitutional amendment
    was ratified by approval of a majority of the electors voting on the proposed
    amendment.
35. The mail-in ballot scheme under Act 77 is therefore unconstitutional
    on its face and must be struck down as void ab initio.

II. The In-Progress Efforts to Amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to
Allow No Excuse Absentee Voting

36. In 2019, the Pennsylvania General Assembly again began the process

for amending Article VI, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; this time in

10
order to permit absentee voting for all voters through Senate Bill 411, 2019 (later
incorporated into Senate Bill 413).

37. The legislative history of the proposed amendment recognizes that
    “Pennsylvania’s current Constitution restricts voters wanting to vote by absentee
    ballot to [specific] situations…” The amendment proposes to “eliminate these
    limitations, empowering voters to request and submit absentee ballots for any
    reason — allowing them to vote early and by mail.” Senator Mike Folmer, et al.,
    Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda (Jan. 29, 2019, 10:46 AM),
    https://www. legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=
    S&SPick=20190&cosponld=28056 (emphasis added).
38. Introduced on March 19, 2019, S.B. 413 as originally filed was a joint
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution related to
    judicial retention elections and contained nothing related to the constitution’s
    absentee voting provision.
39. The bill passed out of the Senate on October 22, 2019 and was sent to
    the House where it was referred to the House Committee on State Government a
    few days later.
40. On April 6, 2020, S.B. 413 was reported as amended from committee.
41. S.B. 413’s caption was changed from the introduced version which

read: “A Joint Resolution proposing separate and distinct amendments to the

11
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, further providing for tenure of
Justices, judges and justices of the peace,” to “A Joint Resolution proposing
separate and distinct amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, further providing for tenure of justices, judges and justices of the
peace; and further providing for absentee voting.” (emphasis added).

42. Inits amended form with the added provisions seeking to amend the
    Pennsylvania Constitution’s absentee voting restrictions, S.B. 413 was passed by a
    majority of both Houses and filed with the Office of the Secretary of the
    Commonwealth on April 29, 2020.
43. §.B. 413 will need to be passed by a majority vote in both the Senate
    and House of Representatives in the next legislative session and then appear on the
    November 2021 general election ballot to be approved by a majority of the electors
    in order to be ratified and properly approved pursuant to the established procedures
    set forth under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
44. If properly approved and ratified by a majority of voters in 2021, S.B.
    413 will amend Article VII, Section 14 as follows:

(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in
which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors whe


duties in the-case-ofa-countempleyee, may vote, and for the
return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which
they respectively reside. A law under this subsection may not
require a qualified elector to physically appear at a
designated polling place on the day of the election.

” Sumy . “

45. The General Assembly later went on to establish a “Select Committee
    on Election Integrity” to “investigate, review and make recommendations
    concerning the regulation and conduct of the 2020 general election.” Pa. H. Res.
    No. 1032, Printer’s No. 4432, Session of 2020 (Sep. 28, 2020),
    https://www. legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtlype=PD
    F&sessY1=2019&sessInd=0&billBody=H& bill Typ=R& bill Nbr=1032&pn=4432
46. The resolution establishing the committee noted that the
    “Commonwealth has traditionally only allowed absentee voting by individuals
    with a statutorily defined excuse to do so, such as a physical disability or absence
    from their municipality on election day.” /d. (emphasis added).
47. It further notes that “[b]efore the enactment of Act 77 of 2019, for an
    individual to vote absentee in this Commonwealth, the individual must have
    provided a permissible reason to do so….” /d.
48. It is expressly acknowledged that Act 77 of 2019, “created a new

category of mail-in voting … [whereby] mail-in voters do not have to provide a

13
customary reason to vote by mail and are able to return their ballots several days
later than had traditionally been allowed.” /d.

49. As with every other amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution,
    S.B. 413 faces additional hurdles and requirements imposed by the Pennsylvania
    Constitution before it becomes law, and its changes have any valid, legally binding
    effect.
50. A majority of the Pennsylvania Senate and House of Representatives
    will each need to vote to approve the proposed constitutional amendment again in
    the upcoming 2020-2021 Session.
51. Ifthe General Assembly again passes the proposed amendment in that
    session, it will then need to be published publicly in two newspapers in each
    county for the three months prior to the 2021 general election, and presented to the
    voters as a ballot question.
52. Pennsylvania voters will have the final say on whether to approve the
    proposed constitutional amendment that seeks to establish no-excuse mail-
    in/absentee voting as a constitutionally authorized method of voting in
    Pennsylvania elections for the very first time.
53. Unless and until the procedures for proposing and approving such an
    amendment are strictly complied with, the only lawful and constitutional methods

of voting in Pennsylvania are in-person voting and absentee voting for those who

14
qualify for one of the four exclusive, limited circumstances under which absentee
voting is constitutionally authorized under Article VII, Section 14.
III. Act 77 of 2019

54. On October 31, 2019, Governor Wolf signed Act 77 of 2019 into law,
    which implemented sweeping reforms to the elections process in Pennsylvania.
55. Among other changes, Act 77 “create[ed] a new option to vote by
    mail without providing an excuse”; allowed voters to request and submit mail-in or
    absentee ballots up to 50 days before an election; and established a semi-
    permanent mail-in and absentee ballot voter list. See, e.g., Press Release, Governor
    Wolf Signs Historic Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting,
    Governor Tom Wolf (Oct. 31, 2019).
56. Ineffect, Act 77 created an entire class of electors who are shown to
    have received a mail-in ballot, despite never actually receiving a mail-in ballot.
57. There is similarly a whole class of voters who received unsolicited or
    unrequested mail-in ballots that never voted via mail-in ballot and never intended
    to vote by mail.
58. The Election Code, as amended by Act 77, does not provide voters
    any meaningful method of disputing a mail-in or absentee ballot that has been
    submitted in their name, even where a ballot is improperly submitted by another

individual.

15
59. Even under circumstances where a voter is absolutely certain that he
or she did not submit a mail-in ballot, if the voting records suggest that such a
ballot has purportedly been received from that voter, the voter is effectively
deprived of their right to cast a vote as a direct and proximate result of the
enactment of Act 77.

60. But for the mail-in voting scheme created under Act 77, enacted in
    direct contravention of Article VII, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,
    the same voter would be entitled to exercise their fundamental constitutional right
    to vote and would be entitled to cast a ballot when they appeared in person at the
    polls on election day.

IV. The November 3, 2020 General Elections

61. Voting at the Pennsylvania General Election (the “General Election”)
    was held on November 3, 2020.
62. The November 3, 2020, General Election was administered by
    Pennsylvania election officials pursuant to Act 77, which included allowing for
    universal, no-excuse mail-in ballots to be counted, in violation of the Pennsylvania
    Constitution.
63. The process of certifying the returns and results of the General

Election is currently underway.

16
64. Should the Commonwealth fail to make a choice for presidential and
vice-presidential electors at the General Elections, the electors may be appointed
on a subsequent day in such manner as the Pennsylvania General Assembly may

direct. See 3 U.S.C. § 2.

COUNT I
Declaratory Judgment

65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the preceding
    paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
66. Act 77 is illegal and void ab initio because it attempts to vastly
    expand the exceptions to in propria persona voting requirements beyond what is
    presently authorized under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
67. No legislative enactment may contravene the requirements of the

Pennsylvania Constitution.

68. In order to be a “qualified elector,” and therefore generally entitled to

vote, the Pennsylvania Constitution requires the following:

—_—

. 18 years of age.

A Citizen of the United States for at least one month.

Residence in Pennsylvania for the 90 days immediately preceding the
election.

4. Residence in the “election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least
   60 days immediately preceding the election ….”

W bo

Pa. Const. Art. VII, § 1 (emphasis added).

17
69. To “offer to vote” by ballot is to present one’s self, with proper
qualifications, at the time and place appointed, and to make manual delivery of the
ballot to the officers appointed by law to receive it, not to send a ballot by mail.

70. Article VII, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution also prescribes
    that “[a]ll elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as
    may be prescribed by law: Provided, [t]hat secrecy in voting be preserved.” Pa.
    Const. Art VII, § 5 (emphasis added).
71. In Pennsylvania, the secrecy provision remains part of our
    fundamental law.
72. Article VII, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides
    exemptions to the in propria persona voting requirements of the Pennsylvania
    Constitution, for four specific circumstances:

(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which,

and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the

occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their

residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to

be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to

attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical

disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the

observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of

election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and

for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in

which they respectively reside.

(b) For purposes of this section, “municipality” means a city,

borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose
unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.

18
Pa. Const. Art. VII, § 14.

73. The Pennsylvania Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the
    Legislature to allow for absentee voting lacking those circumstances described in
    Article VI, Section 14.
74. Act 77 unconstitutionally expands the scope of absentee voting
    permitted by the Pennsylvania Constitution to all voters.
75. Newly-created 25 P.S., Chapter 14, Article XIII-D, § 3510 (25
    Pa.Stat. § 3150.11) states:

§ 3150.11. Qualified mail-in electors.

(a) General rule.– A qualified mail-in elector shall be entitled to vote by an

official mail-in ballot in any primary or election held in this Commonwealth

in the manner provided under this article.

(b) Construction.– The term “qualified mail-in elector” shall not be

construed to include a person not otherwise qualified as a qualified elector in

accordance with the definition in section 102(t).

76. Absentee voting is defined in 25 P.S., Chapter 14, Article 13. 3146.1
    (25 Pa.Stat. § 3146.1), which outlines a variety of categories of eligibility that are
    each consistent with Article VII, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
77. Inenacting Act 77, the Legislature created a fictitious distinction
    between the pre-existing “Absentee Voting” and newly created “Mail-In Voting.”
78. In reality, there is no distinction except that Mail-In Voting is simply

Absentee Voting without any of the inconvenient conditions precedent that the

19
Pennsylvania Constitution requires in order for someone to be permitted to cast a
ballot without being physically present at the polls on election day.

79. In other words, Absentee Voting is only Constitutionally authorized
    under the four limited circumstances specifically delineated under Article VII,
    Section 14, whereas Act 77 opens Absentee Voting to any and all other qualified
    voters in the Commonwealth who do not meet the constitutional requirements for
    Absentee Voting, without excuse or limitation, and simply relabels the voting
    mechanism as “Mail-In Voting” as opposed to “Absentee Voting.”
80. Taking an inartful twist such as simply renaming the mechanism
    yields a distinction without a difference.
81. The Legislature further attempted to disguise the obvious redundancy
    between Mail-In Voting and Absentee Voting by refusing to add “Mail-In Voting”
    to 25 P.S. Article XIII (which governs “Voting By Qualified Absentee Elector) and
    instead created a new Article (25 P.S. Article XIII-D, “Voting By Qualified Mail-
    In Electors).
82. By doing this, it appears the Legislature intended to obscure that the
    two are the same, except that Absentee Voters are required to satisfy additional
    conditions mandated by the Pennsylvania Constitution whereas Mail-In Voters are

not.

20
83. The goal is clear: vastly expand Absentee Voting and remove all
conditions precedent and requirements to make it a universal voting mechanism,
while obscuring the fact that such voting method would violate the Pennsylvania
Constitution and could only be properly enacted through a Constitutional
Amendment.

84. However, renaming a vast, unconstitutional expansion of Absentee
    Voting as “Mail-In Voting” cannot, and does not, make the conduct valid or
    effective as a matter of law.
85. The authority vested in the Legislature to pass general laws
    concerning the manner in which voters can vote by absentee ballot is explicitly
    (and inherently) limited only to the four enumerated circumstances where absentee
    voting is authorized.
86. Therefore, any attempt to expand the definition of an absentee voter
    conflicts with and exceeds the authority established by the Pennsylvania
    Constitution, and a Constitutional Amendment is required in order for such an
    expansion to have any legal effect.
87. Section 11 of Act 77 also contains a non-severability clause, which
    requires that the entire act be rendered void if certain provisions of Act 77 are held
    invalid. See Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, at Section 11 (“Sections 1,

2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of

21
This act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remaining provisions or applications of this act are void.”). Several of the
provisions noted in the non-severability clause of Act 77 include changes to the
Election Code relating to no-excuse mail-in voting; including Section 8, which
contains most of the provisions for the new mail-in voting system. /d. at Section 8.
Because Section 8 and other sections of Act 77 containing provisions for the mail-
in ballot system are invalid, Act 77 must be struck down in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court
enter a declaratory judgment declaring unconstitutional and void ab initio the Act
77 provisions that created a new option to vote by mail without providing an
excuse, declaring Act 77 void in its entirety due to Act 77’s non-severability
clause, declaring invalid any certification of results that include the tabulation of
unauthorized votes, including mail-in ballots which did not meet the Constitutional
requirements, awarding Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and expenses of this action,
including attorneys’ fees and costs and granting such further legal and equitable

relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II
Prohibitory Injunction

88. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the preceding
    paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

There is no adequate redress at law.

22
89. The harm caused by Act 77’s allowance of improper mail-in ballots
cannot adequately be compensated by damages or otherwise be adequately
redressed at law.

90. Ifthe requested relief is not granted, Defendants will continue to
    wrongfully count and certify improper mail-in ballots that are not permitted under
    the Pennsylvania Constitution.
91. Refusing injunctive relief will result in greater harm than granting it.
92. There would be no harm in requiring Defendants to refrain from
    certifying improper mail-in ballots, or to rescind any such certification.
93. The harm in denying the requested injunctive relief and allowing
    Defendants to continue to wrongfully count and certify improper mail-in ballots is
    clearly greater than any harm Defendants could suggest from granting the
    requested relief.

Injunction will restore the status quo.

94. An injunction will restore the status quo as it existed prior to
    Defendants’ unlawful actions.
95. There is a clear right to relief and a likelihood of success on the
    merits.
96. Plaintiffs have a clear right to relief on the merits, including a clear

right to preliminary mandatory and prohibitive injunctive relief.

23
97. To the extent that the public interest is impacted, it will be served
rather than harmed by granting the injunction.

98. The proposed injunctive relief is narrowly tailored and restores the
    status quo as it existed prior to Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court
enter an order, declaration, and/or injunction that prohibits Defendants from
certifying the results of the General Elections which include mail-in ballots which
Defendants improperly permitted on a statewide basis; prohibits Defendants from
certifying the results of the General Elections which include the tabulation of
unauthorized votes, including mail-in ballots which did not meet the Constitutional
requirements and, instead, compels Defendants to certify the results of the election
based solely on the legal votes or, alternatively, directs that the Pennsylvania
General Assembly choose Pennsylvania’s electors; award Plaintiffs’ reasonable
costs and expenses of this action, including attorneys’ fees and costs; and provide
such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and
proper.

Respectfully submitted,
LAW Tek
tA
Gregory H. Teufel
Brandon M. Shields

Attorneys for Plaintiffs