Reply To: Re: Election Fraud, How would we know?

Heath – you are proving my point. First, eligible voters voting according to the law in Pennsylvania is NOT election fraud. They are eligible voters and their votes were counted once. If you have proof that ineligible voters voted using the new law, then you have to identify who those voters were, specifically. And if your argument is “it was too easy for eligible voters to cast votes” then you really need to go find a country with another system of government that does not support democracy.

But to the legal argument, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was correct. The Republican PA legislature made minor tweaks to how people can request absentee ballots in 2019. No one complained. A primary was held. No one complained. It wasn’t until Trump lost that all of the sudden it’s unconstitutional. And it’s only Trump’s seat they’re complaining about. Kelly won his seat with this “unconstitutional” system. Did he take his seat in the House? Go look.

This is the doctrine of laches. You cannot sit on your claim for so long that it becomes not equitable to hear the claim. Similar to a statute of limitations, but it’s an equitable defense. The day the law was passed in 2019 is when it became, supposedly, unconstitutional. The time to bring the claim was right after the bill was passed, not after TWO elections (primary and general), thereby disenfranchising millions of registered, lawful, voters who followed the law. The case was heard already in the US Supreme Court and rejected (they brought it as a state claim then a federal claim, one was rejected, the other will be, I just forget the order). It is also Supreme Court precedent (not followed in Bush v. Gore) that the US Supreme Court cannot tell a state supreme court how to interpret the state’s constitution.

I’ll go even further. Hawley (R-Insurrectionist) does not say what’s unconstitutional about the tweaks to the law the the Republicans passed. I’ll give you a simple example: If the state constitution says that voting is done on yellow paper ballots, but the state government passes a law that says “we are running out of yellow paper, people can vote on blue ballots also” should the people who voted on blue ballots have their votes thrown out after the fact? Assuming they’re eligible voters.

I’ll go EVEN further… can you show me one instance in the 244-year history of the United States where entire population of valid votes were thrown out after an election because they were deemed unconstitutional in the casting after the fact? Show any court anywhere in the United States that ever allowed this to happen.

Is this what you have? Seriously, it’s time to stop saying “no one looked at the evidence.” This was looked at by like 10 courts (including Trump-appointed judges) and they found it to be nonsense. It was briefed, it was argued, it was examined. A similar issue was in Georgia with the Republican-signed “consent agreement.” It was signed in March 2020. It was an order of the court. If there was a problem it should have been brought up then. It cannot be called unconstitutional 7 months later because you don’t like the outcome of the election.

Coffee Addict – I may have, there are many threads. If you re-post the link I will look at it again.