Earlier injunction upheld because it is likely the mail-in balloting is illegal and will be found unconstitutional!
A Pennsylvania state court judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to the appointment of electors and transmission of the necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings [via Legal Insurrection].
The ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week.
It’s only temporary until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules, but that court is Democrat-controlled.
It’s a straight legal case, no mention of fraud is involved.
-
Christian Gold Company Defies Industry’s Retirement Fearmongering Through Prayer and Biblical Hope
The judge is upholding an earlier decision in which Judge Patricia McCollough wrote:
In the Petition, Petitioners allege that the Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 (Act 77), which added and amended various absentee and mail-in voting provisions in the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code),1 is unconstitutional and void ab initio because it purportedly contravenes the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Petitioners allege that Article VII, section 14 of the 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 of one of the four, limited exclusive circumstances under which absentee voting is authorized under the Pennsylvania constitution. (Petition, ¶16.)
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. Id., ¶17.
The Constitution was not legally amended:
Petitioners argue that in order to amend the Constitution, mandatory procedural requirements must be strictly followed. Specifically, 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.
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. Id., ¶¶27, 35-37.
As relief:
As relief, Petitioners seek, inter alia, a declaration and/or injunction that prohibits Respondents from certifying the November 2020 General Election results, which include mail-in ballots that are permitted on a statewide basis and are allegedly improper because Act 77 is unconstitutional.
In approving the injunction, Judge McCullough concludes the election/mail-in balloting is likely unconstitutional:
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. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa.
wpDiscuz
