Yes that is the question.... and the answer is "No, they didn't". Everything contained in that order was something the Sec of State office could legally do... The attorney for the GOP in GA was a party to that Settlement Agreement... and it was approved and entered by a court.

Ouch that GA kraken takedown was brutal

What are you referring to ?

https://t.co/8FRRC6rjIR?amp=1

@JD~Jordan that's what we just got finished speculating... States can do what they will..

@JD~Jordan. They exceeded the Legislation is the question. Not the Form rather the objective. Not in their overview to change the Objective. That is the Legal Question.

It's a motion to question the expertise and validity of the "experts" building the conspiracy

We're talking about act 77 as stated numerous times.

Yeah... that's what's weird about this one and why I think the PA SC may have lazily used the Latches justification. I think the core of the issue is that 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?

Just because it wasn't legal in the state???

@Maw and @William Dinan I have not read this article yet but I was going to the other day... I imagine it will anser some your questions
https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-donald-trump-georgia-elections-voter-registration-40bb602e6f0facf8eecc331e83ab36e0

> talking about act77.

Again.

Not Georgia.

Yeah that's the one that wasn't signed by the Pennsylvania State legislature

Pennsylvania isn't going to put dude over the top

@JD~Jordan the Attorney for a Political Party is not the same as the Legislative Branch.

I just came into the chat.. which is why I asked... no need to be snotty

I'm just informing you we're talking about act 77.

Misses the point entirely.... I just said that Republicans had input into the Settlement Agreement in Georgia.

Not that it was required or a substitute for the legislative branch.

@JD~Jordan which at the end of the day amounts to 0

For gop

That is a question?

I think you miss the Point. @JD~Jordan

Are there trying to force Georgia to drop votes

So they don't take it to court?

> @TaLoN132 Last I checked it was unconstitutional because the legislation changed via the court, and not the legislation.
This is who I was commenting to, @JD~Jordan, if you had read just slightly further back you'd see what we were talking about. This is all I was saying, relax.

The GA State Republican Party and the GA State Legislature are two different entities.

I'm am lost on ga

Georgia is currently my favorite state.

Justice Alito even said “It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the con- stitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election. That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing fed- eral elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought ap- propriate for the conduct of a fair election”

Is that where the kraken come from?

@Zuluzeit It's because the devil (Marx) went there isn't it?!?!?!

Lmfao

Savannah Georgia is actually pretty cool

He was lookin for a poll to steal

LMAO

Not sure how much more clear I can make this... I am referring to the Settlement Agreement between the Sec of State in GA and some Democratic Organizations.
I only noted that the GOP's Attorney was involved to say that the GOP had a seat at the table when negotiating that settlement.

That does not mean I am saying that the Settlement Agreement modified the law itself and its fine since the GOP lawyer was there.
Only the Legislature can modify legislation.

What I am saying is that the Settlement Agreement did not modify the law. Certain guidelines and rules are often created as to how a particular law is carried out by the agency or office tasked with the job of carrying it out... it is those rules and guidelines (that the Sec State Office) had the legal authority to make and then modify.

Marx was a kraken man for way back in the. Day,?

Carlos marcs