@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.

The legislation is unambiguous.

No later than election day.

If it's unconstitutional? Time to go back to the legislation.

@Maw yes strike it down. Have the Legislature redefine or rewrite....

Since it was Boockvar that petitioned the court to allow her to take these extraordinary, temporary steps to make sure that PA voters were afforded every opportunity to participate, isn't it more accurate to say that she decided to act outside the law and they permitted it due to very specific extenuating circumstances? Presumably, the law stands and 4 years from now it will have the same deadline. This isn't the same as deciding that gay marriage is the law of the land or abortion is legal, right?

It's still courts breaching the separation of powers @TaLoN132

Ok... just to save my eyes from reading that mess anymore... let us assume that you are correct (you may well be) what would you think the remedy to be?

Obviously most mail in ballots were in by election day. So clearly those are safe. But there is no doubt some that did not make that deadline. So is the remedy to disenfranchise those voters? To what end?

I guess my point here is... all of the citizens of PA could have voted this way. Who is the injured party here? And what remedy makes them whole?

@JD~Jordan, you just advanced to level 14!

@JD~Jordan Change the law the legal way as the constitution provided.

Right... agreed. But that this simple forward looking. It has no effect on 2020

I think this is more like a cop pulling someone over for speeding and letting them off with a warning because they were racing to take their pregnant wife to the hospital because she was in labor.

This was not a permanent change to the law, from what I can tell.

@JD~Jordan. Exactly forward looking. That is for the Legislature to correct. This was an interpretation not a Constitutional issue.

Well.... that was my opinion. That this was a matter of the PA Supreme Court interpreting the law. But @Maw appears to be saying that the PA SC went well beyond interpreting and was actually legislating from the bench, which of course would be Unconstitutional

Most of these issues are handled after and applied to the next case

Hopefully the pa gop will be more careful next time

Yeah. Its seems obvious that the PA Legislature needs to revisit the law. Ive worked in a few law offices and it has always surprised me that some most laws are so lacking in detail. But, perhaps in this case they need to be very specific.

There are tons of examples of poor legislation.

Usages of may in place of shall.

https://tomluongo.me/2020/12/05/argentina-first-to-fall-to-opposition-to-great-reset-whos-next/

Yeppers... and I have seen courts interpret "shall" as simply being "can if they choose".

I think they need to say "must" when its a requirement....

Rekita says shall is “must”

Did you know that Giuliani tested positive for covid?

Yeah

Damn his ass might die

It’s either pardon prison or covid. I am just waiting for Trump to turn on him at some point. Didn’t guliani say he has insurance or something regarding Trump turning on him

I think there is a reason that the full US SC was divided on this case. Isn't this the one that they voted 4-4 - letting it stand? This was the PA SC allowing the Sec of State some discretion on ensuring that pandemic did not have a negative impact on the ability of PA citizens to vote. It was a one-time allowance - not a permanent change to the vote. I still think it is like a cop pulling over a speeder and letting them go without ticketing them because of a wife in labor. The cop didn't change the speed limit, just took into consideration the exigent circumstances.

@TaLoN132, you just advanced to level 28!

I haven't been watching this bullahit...

It's more fun to speculate on a bunch of crap that I don't know about.

Not that read a news article is actually going to tell me anything.

You seem to be particularly adept at that... I like it. 😉