So they were incompetent or endeavoring a setup. Incompetence seems like the better defense for them imo.

I'm not following the "having forgotten to vote again" thing... I may not have read far enough. What does that mean?

It still needs settled and remedied.

@TaLoN132 they are supposed to hold two hearing to officially amend the constitution and they just didn’t hold the second hearing

you're missing the other parts required to certify the amendment. It isn't just "two hearing" needed.

The remedy is to make sure all technical procedure is followed and to not forget about it. @DeathRhodes666 the second hearing not being held is why the amendment to the constitution was never official

@james j In the ruling they outlined the steps for Amending the Constitution, which involved 2 votes to get it onto a ballot *and* it has to be published for 3 months ahead of an election where it is put on a ballot to be decided by the voters.

Yeah

Both hearings require it be published in the paper

I’ll have to watch the rekita video again

And then voted on as a ballot question on the next election.

There are some other tiny stipulations present

I don’t think it’s gets voted on by the people

In any election

From the ruling, *" Specifically, pursuant to Article XI, Section 1, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority vote of the members of both the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions, then the proposed amendment must be published for three months ahead of the next general election in two newspapers in each county, and finally it must be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot question in the next general election and approved by a majority of those voting on the amendment"*

That statute makes it seem that this amendment wouldn't take effect until the 2024 GE as the 2020 GE would have certified the amendment

Right two legislative sessions where the electors vote

Not electors. The State House and Senate. Unless they are the electors

Submitted to qualified electors

The ruling also says that the complaint seems to assert that this is a first step in trying to get to universal mail-in voting, which is a slippery slope argument that seems odd, in this context. If it is unconstitutional, this shouldn't matter.

Did Pennsylvania even have universal mail in voting

I thought you still had to request a ballot

@james j I think qualified electors is lawyer-speak for registered voters.

I’ll have to watch the rekita video again , I don’t think this process requires citizen voters

@james j *"Petitionersallege that mail-in voting in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal, no-excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority. "*

I'm not sure why that is needed to make their case.

Hm

Either way the Burden can’t fall on voters that voted in good faith

That's why it will be interesting to see how this goes...

@james j That was the fundamental argument from the very beginning. It needs to be tampering in order to jettison the will of the people.

If they did not act to enfranchise voters in the South who were suppressed from voting (in the past), how can they disenfranchise voters today that voted in good faith and would likely have voted in-person if this was not available to them?

@TaLoN132 Same point. More words. Still valid.

I haven't had time to look into this to know what it means... On the surface, it would appear that they are asserting that there are some really dumb criminals in NV. 😄

Okay I see so they didn’t put it on the ballot in 2019 so it couldn’t pass @TaLoN132

My high school Health teacher told me that I was impressed by my own verbosity. He may have had a point.

So it does have to be voted on by the general people

Hahaha I love it though. Makes it clear.

Finally a group that respects eachother and has honest discussion...