Go to home page

Pennsylvania Judge Rules Claim of Illegal Election Is ‘Viable,’ Likely ‘To Succeed on the Merits’

Nov. 28, 2020 (EIRNS)—(Flash: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw the suit out today, not on the merits of the constitutionality of the issue, but because it was brought “too late.” It is not clear if it can now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

The Pennsylvania judge who blocked the state from taking any steps toward certification of the Nov. 3 election, Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough, explained her legal reasoning in a statement released on Friday, Nov. 27. Her ruling in the case brought by several Pennsylvania elected officials states that the plaintiffs

“have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits” of the case, because “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. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77.”

She ordered any certification to be stalled until a hearing in her court on the merits, but the hearing was postponed when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took the case, where it now stands.

Article VII Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution spells out precisely under what conditions the legislature may allow absentee voting, and only under such conditions. Allowing absolutely anyone to vote absentee is clearly unconstitutional. Act 77, passed by the legislature on Oct. 31, 2019, simply ignored the Constitution, in order to allow anyone to vote by mail up 50 days before the election date.

Judge McCullough ruled that without the emergency injunction, the plaintiffs would likely suffer “irreparable harm.... If what may be an unconstitutional mail-in voting process remains extant, such mail-in ballots may make the difference as to whether he is successful or not.”

Although this ruling does not address the cases filed by the Trump campaign, it directly impacts the entire election.

Back to top    Go to home page clear