Wednesday, February 24, 2021


 The US Supreme Court has once again punted on the Pennsylvania election case, claiming that now that the election is over, the question is MOOT.  

Here’s the thing about this particular case in Pennsylvania. The legislature had voted and passed legislation that mandated ALL ballots, including absentee ballots, be received by 8pm on election night. Any ballots received after that deadline wouldn’t be counted. This was a well-known rule throughout Pennsylvania. 

 But then, the State Supreme Court got involved after Democrats sued. Suddenly, in the midst of the election, after ballots had already been sent out, the court moved the deadline to three days AFTER the election. Their reasons? Covid and the U.S. mail. Stupid reasons if you ask me. But that is what Pennsylvania’s court did. They arbitrarily overruled the legislation because reasons. What’s even worse about their ruling is it also opened the door to allowing ballots to be counted, even if no signature nor a valid postmark. But nothing to see here, no potential of election fraud whatsoever. None.

Here's the problem as I see it.  The legislature allowed these shenanigans.  The legislature had recourse, after the election date.  The US Constitution requires that the legislature meet after the election, to certify the results. If the legislature had refused to certify the results of the election based on the changes made in election procedures, the result would have been that Pennsylvania would have sent no electors to the Electoral College.

Likewise, in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, et al, if those legislatures had refused to certify the results to the election.  There would have been a huge uproar, but it would have been Constitutional,  The legislature holds the responsibility to certify the results of the elections in their respective states, and that certification should be more than a rubber-stamp..

As much as I rail at the Supreme Court, they may have backed into the correct conclusion.  The certification of an election rests with the legislature.  If the legislature fails to hold the election officials accountable, then why should the Supreme Court hold them accountable?


Peripatetic Engineer said...

That is an interesting comment on the situation, and one which I fear is too subtle for most people to understand.

dogsledder said...

Actually I understand that our Representative Republic is over. Judge John Roberts, fool that he is, does not understand that. He is responsible.b

Stuart said...

I believe this post is exactly correct and is the reason the SCOTUS (correctly) declined to get involved. However, there is just one rub. (and it's a big one) Why should the citizens of the entire country have their vote abrogated by the actions of a couple of corrupt states? That is what the Texas suit attempted to ask but it was premature. It didn't give the corrupt states the opportunity to correct the situation. Before this is over, I think some entity will ask that question in the right way and at the right time and the SCOTUS will answer. If not... well the cartridge box remains.