The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is 5-2 liberal, struck down a lawsuit late Saturday that challenged the legality of a new state law that allowed voters to obtain an absentee ballot for any reason. Remember, this is the same court that violated US Constitution Article I, Section 4 when they changed election law Act 77 by extending the 8 pm Election Day deadline for receiving ballots. The Executive and Judicial branches of the Pennsylvania state government did a lot more that violated the law in favor of the Democrats.
We reported last week that Pennsylvania Judge Patricia McCullough issued an injunction Wednesday when Republicans made an emergency request to stop the certification of Pennsylvania’s election results.
The main argument of the lawsuit was that Act 77, a law passed in October 2019, violated the state Constitution by allowing voters to obtain absentee ballots for any reason. There are only a handful of reasons why an absentee ballot may be cast listed in the state Constitution.
On Friday, McCullough issued an opinion disclosing that the claimants would likely win the case on the merits:
“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, unanimously dismissed the lawsuit, ruling the challenge came too late for a reasonable legal remedy.
The lawsuit sought to have the absentee ballots cast as a result of Act 77 to be invalidated.
In a three-page opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote, “Upon consideration of the parties’ filings in Commonwealth Court, we hereby dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner.”
In fact, the court said the lawsuit violated the “doctrine of laches” because of the petitioners’ “complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment.”
The court explained:
VIDEO OF THE DAYIdiots Twerk On Ambulance After Shooting In Oakland, CA
“The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.”
How was the legal team supposed to know back in June that the law would be violated in the massive way it was by Democrats? Whatever happened to the rule of law? So, because so many people already voted the rule of the law no longer applies? That’s like saying because so many people commit murder, we should just invalidate murder laws. Is it the position of the liberal high court that the petitioners should have clairvoyant abilities?
Rich is a conservative syndicated opinion writer and runs Maga-Chat.com. He writes about politics, culture, liberty, and faith.
MAGA-Chat.com, where free speech is still free. JOIN the revolution!