Judge: Republicans Will Likely Win Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-...g-2020-11-28-1

Judge: Republicans Will Likely Win Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit
By Ivan Pentchoukov

November 27, 2020 Updated: November 28, 2020

The judge who ordered Pennsylvania to not certify the results of the 2020 election wrote in an opinion on Friday that the Republicans who filed the related lawsuit will likely win the case.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough made the assessment as part of an opinion explaining her rationale for blocking Pennsylvania’s election certification.

A group of Republican lawmakers and candidates sued the Keystone State earlier this week, arguing that the state legislature’s mail-in voting law—Act 77—violated the commonwealth’s constitution.

“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,” McCullough wrote.

When ruling on an emergency injunction, judges have to consider whether the party which requested the injunction is likely to win the case or “succeed on the merits.” McCullough opined that the “petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene” the plain language of the provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution which deals with absentee voting.

Pennsylvania said that it had certified the results of the election for president and vice president on Nov. 24 while the court was reviewing briefings from both parties. In response, the plaintiffs filed a request for an emergency injunction, arguing that that state need not have acted so fast.

“It appears that respondents’ actions may have been accelerated in response to the application for emergency relief … in an effort to preclude any remedial action by this court faster than this court was able to evaluate the application for emergency relief and the answers to it,” the plaintiffs wrote.

The emergency request underlined that while Pennsylvania completed vote-counting and submitted the signed certification to the U.S. archivist, a number of steps still remain for the formal certification process to be completed.

“While Respondents may have proactively attempted to avoid potential injunctive relief granted by this Court, Respondents duties with regard to finalization of the full election results are far from complete,” the filing states.

Republican state lawmakers in Pennsylvania released a memo on Nov. 27, advising that they will soon introduce a resolution to dispute the results of the 2020 election.

The resolution states that the executive and judicial branches of the Keystone State’s government usurped the legislature’s constitutional power to set the rules of the election.

The resolution “declares that the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this commonwealth is in dispute” and “urges the secretary of the commonwealth and the governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 general election.”

Follow Ivan on Twitter: @ivanpentchoukov

interesting going ons with ACT 77 since it was not validated as the PA state's constitutional amendment.

since this involves mail in ballots, we're talking about 2.5 million ballots? is that right?

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overturns Block on Certification of Election Results
By Janita Kan
November 28, 2020 Updated: November 28, 2020

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday overturned a lower court’s order blocking election officials from certifying the results of the 2020 election. The court also dismissed the case with prejudice.

In a Per Curiam opinion, the state’s top court ruled to vacate Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough’s injunctive relief that would have prevented the state from taking further steps to complete the certification of the presidential race.

The court said the petitioners had failed to file their challenge in a “timely manner,” as they had filed their suit more than one year after the enactment of Act 77—the law central to the case.

The case at hand—cited as Kelly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—was filed by a group of Republican politicians who argue that Act 77, a law that made voting by mail without an excuse legal in Pennsylvania, violates the state’s constitution.

The lawsuit alleges that the state law 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.”

Earlier this week, McCullough granted an emergency request by the plaintiffs to temporarily block the certification after the Keystone state announced it was poised to finalize the process of formal certification for the presidential election results.

The Commonwealth judge explained in her opinion, issued on Friday, that the “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.”

She also opined that the “petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene” the plain language of the provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which deals with absentee voting.

The state Supreme Court said on Saturday that the petitioners waited until days before the county of boards of election were required to certify the election results, which could “result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters” who voted by mail.

“It is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim,” the court wrote.

Chief Justice Thomas Saylor issued a separate opinion agreeing to reverse the preliminary injunction. However, Saylor said he believes the Republican petitioners should still be able to argue their case about the constitutional validity of Act 77.

“I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme,” Saylor wrote.

Justice Sallie Mundy joined in that opinion.

The lawyers of the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.
Follow Janita on Twitter: @janitakan

okay. so the PA supreme court overturns the injunction of the certification and dismisses the ACT 77 constitutional case on the fact it was filed too late.


this is kind of a strange ruling. certification I get that part. they even admit there may be problems with ACT 77 when they dismissed the case.

PA judges on the bench, aren't they majority democrat?


yup... 5 democrats to 2 republicans

Not exactly the kind of voter fraud H I M has been referring to. Seems like throwing out millions of votes due to neglecting some obscure paragraph in a state’s constitution would disenfranchise people more than anything.

Not exactly the kind of voter fraud H I M has been referring to. Seems like throwing out millions of votes due to neglecting some obscure paragraph in a state’s constitution would disenfranchise people more than anything. Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

you're right, this is not voter fraud. this is a major cock up by the PA administration. they ran it as if it was legal.

from what I understand, ACT 77 has to complete a process for it to be constitutional, it didn't complete it. it has to be voted twice for it to be a valid constitutional amendment.

Well..if thee poch times sez so..........BWAHAHA

Well..if thee poch times sez so..........BWAHAHA Originally Posted by matchingmole

Typical xinn marxist lock down lover response!

That case was dismissed with predjudice last night BP.

So, apparently your dissenting opinion didn’t carry the day. (That’s why it was a dissenting opinion)

Wonder who appointed the dissenter.

Trump can only blame himself. In his memoir: “Don’t talk to me like that,” he’ll finally be able to blame everybody.

Trump is taking losing to new heights. Y’all Trump supporters tired of all this losing yet. I mean, that dude has made y’all The Bigliest Losers.

I guess that age old question, "Are we winning yet?" has finally been satisfactorily answered and put to rest.

xinn marxist memes all yall have.

According to the results of a law suit involving Candace Owens, Joe Biden and his followers CANNOT call him president elect yet (if ever). Facebook censored Owens when she objected to the term president elect being applied to Biden. She sued Facebook and the court found that Owens is technically true...there is no president elect until the casting of the votes by the electoral college in December.

So we can properly identify the fools among us. There is no president elect at this time. Someone tell Joe.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1876419...er-politifact/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/canda...ecker-and-wins

President Elect Biden will be President Biden Jan 20. We Made America Great Again. You’re welcome.