OT: American Politics
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
I’m not arguing against any of it. From my reading though I believe that their argument for equal protection is that some counties allowed for the curing of ballots while others did not which they are trying to paint as a violation of constitutional equal rights protection. Some maintain that constitutes assistance. I’ve read opposing opinions on this, as lawyers are wont to do, and while I don’t think there will be a remedy ( I just can’t see that) I do believe it needs correcting for the future.
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
Most funny comedians are channeling their inner turmoil. Like Robin Williams for example, although I thought he was a comedic genius.
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
mbow30
Spudmeister Supreme
Maybe it’s another case? I don’t see anything in the act 77 challenge touching on the US constitution.
In This case They’re arguing that act 77 violates s 14 of the state constitution, which only permits absentee voting in prescribed circumstances (and, they allege in the claim, under the constitution all other voting must be in person, and mail in voting is indistinguishable from absentee so therefore must be subject to a 14).
Insofar as the injunctive relief is concerned, they just make assertions on risk of harm without justification or legal analysis.
zeke
Well-known member
They were not only all ALLOWED ballot curing - they were all INSTRUCTED to report ballots for curing.
"Jonathan Marks, deputy secretary for elections and commissions at the Pennsylvania Department of State, sent an email to all county elections officials clarifying what they should do with ballots set aside due to errors when they began pre-canvassing the following morning. (Exhibit A in this lawsuit.)
Marks, Nov. 2: "The Department of State has been asked whether county boards of elections can provide information to authorized representatives and representatives of political parties during the pre-canvass about voters whose absentee and mail-in ballots have been rejected. The Department issued provisional ballot guidance on Oct. 21, 2020, that explains that voters whose completed absentee or mail-in ballots are rejected by the county board for reasons unrelated to voter qualifications may be issued a provisional ballot. To facilitate communication with these voters, the county boards of elections should provide information to party and candidate representatives during the pre-canvass that identifies the voters whose ballots have been rejected and should promptly update the SURE system."
The SURE system is the Statewide Uniform Directory of Electors, which allows Pennsylvania voters to check the status of their mail-in ballots online. So if the system was updated on Election Day to indicate a ballot was rejected, a voter checking the online system could then go to a polling place and cast a provisional ballot.
According to the Oct. 21 guidance referenced in Marks’ email, a provisional ballot should be provided to a voter in the event a “[v]oter returned a completed absentee or mail‐in ballot that was rejected by the county board of elections and the voter believes they are eligible to vote.”
A number of republican counties did not inform the voters whose ballots needed curing. They did that intentionally, of course, because they knew mail-in ballots would be mostly dem votes.
They pretended they did it because the PA Supreme Court said not to, but that wasn't true.
“ALL counties could allow notice and cure,” Ray Murphy of the nonpartisan Keystone Votes coalition told us via email. “It was lawful and consistent with the PA Supreme Court’s ruling.”
Lawsuits from Republicans disagreed. In one of the complaints, the GOP argued the guidance from Boockvar’s office to allow ballot curing violated state law and a recent Supreme Court ruling, and that counties that refused to heed her guidance were merely following the law. The lawsuit cites Section 3146.8 of the state’s election code, which states: “No person observing, attending or participating in a pre-canvass meeting may disclose the results of any portion of any pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of the polls.”
The lawsuit also noted that Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court stated last month that “unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects (to their ballot) in a timely manner.”
A fuller reading of the Supreme Court’s ruling, however, shows the court found there was no “requirement” for ballot curing, but went no further than that.
According to the state Supreme Court, “the Election Code contains no requirement that voters whose ballots are deemed inadequately verified be apprised of this fact. Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely manner.”
In a hearing in Philadelphia on Nov. 4 on another GOP complaint about curing inconsistencies, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Savage raised that issue to question the Republican claim.
“I’m not sure about that,” said Savage, an appointee of President George W. Bush, according to a Politico report about the hearing. “Is that exactly what was said or is what was said was that there is no mandatory requirement that the election board do that?… Wasn’t the legislative intent of the statute we are talking about to franchise, not disenfranchise, voters?”
mbow30
Spudmeister Supreme
The act 77 challenge has nothing to do with ballot curing. The crux of the argument is that mail in voting, which act 77 permits, is not legal under the state constitution. Therefore they are asking for act 77 to be overturned AND for injunctive relief to discard all of the votes that were cast in a manner that contravenes the states constitution.
These are separate tests and the court can find act 77 unconstitutional without granting the injunctive relief.
These are separate tests and the court can find act 77 unconstitutional without granting the injunctive relief.
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
I’m thinking it is now because it’s not mentioned. Can’t keep up with them all.
zeke
Well-known member