« " ... 'not statistically impossible, but ... statistically implausible.'" Basham | Main | Update: Judge Alito orders a reply by December 8 on the Pennsylvania state court lawsuit and a stay order about certifying the election »

06 December 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


These are the first paras of the linked article.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results.

Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.

Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requirest that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime.

In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly's case, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend.

According to Kelly's filing, the 'no-excuse mail-in' voting scheme should only apply in a limited number of circumstances, and that people must vote in person unless a narrow list of excuses applies. Thus, Act 77 and related election access laws should be invalidated - along with votes cast under it in the 2020 election.



National Vote at Home Institute pushes their agenda for "no excuses" all mail-in elections: https://voteathome.org/about-us/

How did this work out for them this time? Or do the mail-in interest group just own the media, who claims mail at home worked perfectly and there was zero no evidence of fraud. Especially since "signature verification was so robust.

Was it the (1) balloting, the (2) verification of the balloting, or (3) counting the balloting that was most suspect this time?

Paper ballots issued at polling places on one Election Day, hand counts with double to triple independent checking of ballots should be the Gold Standard. Anything else must be the exception; not the rule. Any other agenda is weak and suspect, no matter how nobly they try to dress it up.

Voting is our one commonly shared duty - voting should be sacred and approached reverentially; not cheapened and handled expeditiously.



The supreme court is not bound by a safe harbor deadline. The PA law either violates the constitution or it doesn't. If it does the resolution is turning the mater for selecting electors to the electoral college to the PA legislature. They, along with the governor and PA SC judges, were elected by the same voters, who can express their pleasure at this result in the next state election.


Finally, a focused approach. I looked at PA, GA? elections laws ... wondering.

Admittedly the "good-faith reliance by the electorate" was on my mind too immediately. Even more considering the fact that Donald Trump started to speak out against the extension of mail-in voting starting in his Corona briefs in April. In other words had they moved earlier the "good-faith" wouldn't be relevant before.

But I agree, this is legally probably irrelevant.

Elegant approach. Following Trump's earliest statements, the only needed fraud that has to be kicked out is mail-in voting. This is based on careful analysis of events, and doesn't even need allegations.


"good-faith" wouldn't be relevant before need to be considered anymore.

Dennis Daulton

October 31 2019 pre dates the COVID-19 issue and therefore means that the plan to steal this election was afoot and set into motion before the pandemic hit.


The constitutional argument sounds very, very solid to me, what I find pretty curious though, maybe I have to read the whole decision to understand is this bit of ...

Legalese: If I vote by mail I dilute your votes more than if I vote personally? It remains one vote only one way or another? No?

5. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed various circumstances concerning disenfranchisement of votes. For instance, it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Reynolds, which established the “one person, one vote” doctrine, is the seminal case on voter dilution. Under this concept, a mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in Pa. Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Cour.


Teasing out this key argument above ( Thnx lux):

.......... it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise"..........

Seamus Padraig

@Dennis Daulton | 06 December 2020 at 07:07 PM

October 31 2019 pre dates the COVID-19 issue and therefore means that the plan to steal this election was afoot and set into motion before the pandemic hit.

Or just maybe, at some level, plans for Covid-19 itself were already afoot. After all, October 2019 was the very month that Bill Gates sponsored the Event 21 Conference, speculating on how governments should respond should a corona virus just 'happen' to render normal life impossible.

Keith Harbaugh

Something I notice: When a court decision goes against the desires and priorities of the left, and the judge or judges who authored the decision were appointed by Republicans, or ran for election as judges on the GOP ticket, this fact is invariably noted by the media and commentators, and used as evidence that this decision was influenced by politics, not the law and facts.

However, in this PA decision, all five of the PA Supreme Court
judges who sided with the Democrats ran for THEIR election on the Democratic platform!
But this fact is ignored by the media and, surprisingly, Mr. Willmann.
To the media, only Republicans can be accused of partisanship!

Keith Harbaugh

Sorry, the Wikipedia link should have been


This is the case they really fear, they love crazy Lin Wood.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad