Emergency application for writ of injunction in Pennsylvania election case

This is the case decided just five days ago where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that it was too late (laches) to challenge a law with a 180 day statute of limitations that supposedly amended the Pennsylvania constitution.

Any first year law student will tell you that you can’t amend a constitution with a statute, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court thinks that is okay in 2020.

This application first goes to Justice Sam Alito. He’s from New Jersey. He knows how corrupt state politicians roll. I’ll say right now that the writ of injunction will be granted and the US Supreme Court will hear the case.

Just today I was telling my friend who is a University of Nebraska law school grad that one of the purposes of federal courts is to protect citizens from corrupt state officials. This case is that in spades.

Attorney Greg Teufel wrote a 30 plus page brief with five pages of citations and not a single typo. He deserves the thanks of every citizen. Super great work. A hero for the Republic!

Attorney Teufel noted at the beginning of his brief that since 1839 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the only way to expand absentee voting is by a constitutional amendment.

And amending the Pennsylvania constitution is no easy matter. The bill must pass both Houses in two terms and then voters decide the question at the ballot box. The earliest that the constitution could have been amended was for the November 2021 election.

Here in Nebraska, we amended our constitution in this election by a vote of the people; the way it is supposed to be.

Per the state constitution, there are only two – and only two ways – to vote in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: (1) In person on election day; and (2) as absentee but only under certain conditions.

I absolutely loved how attorney Teufel noted the Catch-22 the Dems set up in this case. Under established Pennsylvania law, no one had standing before an election to challenge Act 77 with its 180 day statute of limitations. But now those voters with standing to challenge since there has been an election are held to have waited too long. Laches! Catch-22!

Quotable quote, “Laches is a shield to protect Respondents [the Governor and Secretary of State] from gamesmanship, it is not a sword to use against harmed individuals to insulate Respondents’ unconstitutional actions.”

I’ve seen some people claim there is no jurisdiction for SCOTUS to hear this case. There are at least three federal statutes that confer jurisdiction. In the first instance a federal constitutional question is presented when a state court violates its own constitution. Lawyer Teufel here cites a 1970 Pennsylvania case that held that a state statute can’t contravene a state or the federal constitution. Duh.

If SCOTUS doesn’t act, citizens will be deprived of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights via an unconstitutional and invalid no-excuse absentee voting scheme.

David D. Begley