Think you are right

I think it is funny how - in the fist case, the legislature is suing Boockvar for exceeding her authority granted in Act 77 - clearly on the basis that they believed Act 77 was a valid, enforceable law - they did not question the constitutionality of Act 77 in that original case. There were competing provisions - one that said the Sec of State had the obligation to do everything possible to ensure a safe, secure, legal election. And another that said that mail-in ballots had to be received by 8PM on election day. Given the extenuating circumstances Boockvar believed that honoring her obligation allowed her to temporarily extend the mail-in ballot deadline.

In the Kelly v PA/Boockvar case, they are asserting that Act 77 is unconstitutional because it adds the no-excuse mail-in voting option, which is not specified in the PA Constitution. They are not arguing that it is unconstitutional because it changed. They are saying Act 77, as originally enacted, is unconstitutional. An assertion they did not make in the original case.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-information-election-day-efforts-protect-right-vote-and-prosecu-1

The federal government does go after some specific types of voter fraud

As well as other election related crimes.

@TaLoN132 Last I checked it was unconstitutional because the legislation changed via the court, and not the legislation.

...

The federal government probably won't bring charges if it costs more to litigate than what it's worth...

Meaning they're probably not going to go after 300 votes

@busillis. Example. I mailed my Ballot without signing by mistake. The Elections Clerk accepted it and counted it as a Vote in violation of State Law. The Clerk violated the State Law. The US Mail was not an Element of the Crime/Violation.

Until state election results are deemed illegal... There is 0

There is no mention of the "deadline changing issue" in the case docketed for 12/8.

I've previously conceded this point and posted something that outlines what the US department of business after in terms of voting related crimes.

But yeah

Then who knows?

@busillis sorry. I'm not trying to beat a Dead Horse.

Hard to tell..

Joke

Ing

😂

@busillis. Maybe someone else learned something by our exchanged....lol

I'm learning.

@busillis we all are. It's a never ending Journey if we keep an Open Mind.

Are you referring to the Compromise Order?

Settlement Agreement?

I think lots of people are being misinformed on that issue. I have read the compromise. It didnt change the law... It only changed a few rules and guidelines (how the law was implemented) which are things often set aside for the agency or office that has to carry out that law can address without legislative review.

Yeah... Settlement Agreement/ Compromise Order... the one in GA

You literally just described a breach of the separation of powers.

Not at all

The IRS for example makes up gazzillions of rules and guidelines...

Its the exact same logic here...

@JD~Jordan the IRS is one of the most revered institutions in the United States.

@JD~Jordan the Executive Branch can only preform the authority that is established by Statue of the Legislation. I believe the question is they exceed their Authority.

Right behind the FBI

Here is a copy of the Settlement Agreement/Compromise Order.... Take a moment to read it. It doesn't modify the underlying law.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/GA-Settlement-1.pdf

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.