The more they can down the road the worse off Trump is

Unless the legislature steps in

Idk

@busillis 27 ?

The courts are supposed to take legislation at its face value, even if it's poorly written.

You asked me how many years I've been to University

It's not their job to change law.

Or maybe I read it incorrectly

That's the legislation's job.

Texting and driving

@busillis oh yeah

Noty

Go

Just relax... I am reading the actual order of the PA SC... instead of snippets. And thus far I see no problem.

I will say this since there was litigation surrounding Act 77 it does not appear Latches applies, so that will help team trump

The SC can't just interpret whatever it wants to when it reads legislation. That's not how the system works.

The Court should have struck it down or given instructions to amend the Statue. Not create Law only allow the Legislature to better define it.

It is actually the job of the State's Supreme Courts to interpret the laws of the States... just like the Supreme Court of the US does.... The issue is whether or not they interpreted accurately. But it is very much their job to interpret the law and apply it to the the facts in any pending legislation. Its a basic function of the SCs

Interpret, not change.

I never said change

Interpretation can change laws inherently, and they literally changed the law, which is really the problem we're talking about.

I absolutely agree that a court cannot simply change legislation. But they can interpret it and tell all lower courts how the law should be applied. That has been happening since the Constitution was ratified.

And yes... I also agree that interpreting a law in a certain way may not be in line with what the legislature had intended, but unless that intent is clear they the courts still get to interpret it.

The recourse of the legislature is to modify that legislation if they feel the court has incorrectedly interpreted it

One problem I see in the Courts Ruling to start with is... Absence of a Post Mark. How do we even know the Envelope went through the US Postal System?

So far as the Legislature's intent is clear then they Court has to go with that, assuming the law is Constitutional. But if the intent is not clear and the law is otherwise Constitutional then the Court can absolutely interpret and thus tell lower courts how the law is to be applied. That is the most basic function of the Highest Courts in each State and in the US.

The US Supreme Court will also have to look at Reasonable Reliance on the Voters Part. The Court will not easily Disenfranchise Voters! Tough Road to Travel.

Yeah very true.
Typically speaking the remedy of some citizens being disenfranchised is not to disenfranchise millions more... I cannot see a rational court ruling to discount all of PA's votes

So I am trying to read what Act 77 modified and its a giant mess of a law... have you guys looked at it? Yikes

"Mail in ballots shall be accepted no later than 8 P.M. November 3rd." Clearly this isn't clear enough. The courts are not here to change legislation they don't agree with.

There is a Remedy to address this in the Law.

Well... what amounts to "accepted"... is that defined in the statute itself?

What would you suggest the remedy to be (assuming of course that they win the case)?

Well let me get you the exact quoting of the law if you so choose to be pedantic in this manner. They didn't question the interpretation of 'accepted' though.

Yeah they did... post marked vs arrived... etc

@JD~Jordan I don't wear the Black Robe or make the Bug Bucks.

LOL... I know. I am just saying that the remedy might simple be to strike down the law and nothing else. As you, correctly stated, hundreds of thousands of voters relied on that law to cast their ballots.

```“a completed mail-in ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.” 25 P.S. § 3150.16(c)```

@JD~Jordan Didn't they also say no Post Mark ?

Here's is what I think is the core of the issue that they have to decide: the PA Constitution outlines specific reasons that people can vote absentee. This is the current PA constitution section that outlines absentee voting:

*"Absentee Voting
Section 14
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside."*

There is a (b), but it just defines municipality in this context.

So, the question seems to be... Does this mean that these are the only reasons to allow Absentee ballots under the constitution and any changes require an amendment? Or... Do these represent the minimum, guaranteed reasons for allowing absentee voting, but is does not preclude the legislature from enacting laws to extend mail-in voting as they did in Act 77, but if they chose to exclude any of these reasons, it would require an amendment?

Im honestly not sure... the typeset on the statute on this page is impossible to read without crossing your eyes... I will look further

```“although election laws must be strictly construed to prevent fraud, they ordinarily will be construed liberally in favor of the right to vote.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[o]ur goal must be to enfranchise and not to disenfranchise [the electorate].” In re Luzerne Cty. Return Bd., 447 Pa. 418, 290 A.2d 108, 109 (1972)``` This is the reason the *courts* **changed** it.

"construed" is just another word for interpreted... So they court is clearly TRYING to make it seem like they are simply interpreting... but taking what you have posted here as fact, I would have to be of the opinion they may well have stepped over that line.

@JD~Jordan I may be mistaken. I believe I read that. Too many cases to be sure.