Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
Scrip7
Det som hävdas:
Citat:
Petitioners allege
that 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.
Citat:
According to Petitioners, the legislature did not follow the necessary
procedures for amending the Constitution before enacting Act 77 which created a
new category of mail-in voting; therefore, the mail-in ballot scheme under Act 77 is
unconstitutional on its face and must be struck down.
Citat:
They contend that the Pennsylvania
Constitution requires voting to take place in person, subject only to specified
absentee voting exceptions.
Citat:
Petitioners argue that outside of the aforementioned prescribed
situations, the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow
for expansion of absentee voting. Consequently, Act 77 is illegal and void ab initio
because it attempts to expand the constitutionally-established exceptions to in
propria persona voting requirements.
Det som beslutas:
Citat:
Based upon the record before it, this Court has sufficient grounds to
enjoin Respondents from further certification activities on an emergency
preliminary basis, pending the results of the evidentiary hearing it had scheduled
for this date, after which the Court would have determined if a preliminary injunction
10
should issue.4
Since the Court is sitting in equity it has the power to fashion such
relief as it is vitally important that the status quo be preserved pending further
judicial scrutiny.
Citat:
Additionally, 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.
Citat:
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.
TL;DR:
Målet har ingenting med valfusk att göra. Det som hävdas är att poströstning som det gjorts i år (Act 77) är okonstitutionell. Konstitutionen anger 4 undantagsfall där poströstning är tillåtet, men Act 77 ger ytterligare utrymme för poströstning. Rätten finner att detta måste granskas mer noga och därför pausas hela processen för att ge tid till mer granskning, men det verkar som att man styrkt att det är okonstitutionellt och att det hade krävt ett tillägg i konstitutionen för att poströsterna ska vara giltiga.
Min tolkning: Om man dömer till Trumps fördel här (det är än så länge en vinst för Trump, men bara utifrån att rätten kommer titta närmare på fallet - men rätten säger också att det verkar som att Trump har rätt i att det är okonstitutionellt) så måste valet i PA antingen göras om, eller så kommer man helt enkelt få stryka alla poströster.
