Natalie’s Commentary: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is dominated by Democrats. It is important to point out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violates Petitioners due process rights and rights to petition under the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It does not address or reach the critical issue that Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting during the Nov. 3 elections, where petitioners wrote in the court filing. It is obvious that this is a stalling tactic to reduce the time to challenge the election.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Turns Down Effort to Challenge Election Violating Fourteenth and First Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an application for a stay of its own order related to the certification of election results on Dec. 3.
In a one-statement order, the state’s highest court rejected a filing by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and other Republicans.
Kelly’s lawyer didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.
The group last month sued the state, seeking to block the certification of the election results in the commonwealth by arguing that its vote-by-mail statute violates the Pennsylvania Constitution.
A commonwealth judge several days later blocked certification of the results. She saidpetitioners would likely win the lawsuit “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.”
But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, dominated by Democrats, overturned the ruling on Nov. 28.
MOST READ
The court said petitioners 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 plaintiffs this week filed a request asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. They also argued that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should stay its own ruling because there was a “reasonable possibility” that the nation’s highest court would take up the appeal.