Web
Analytics

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overturns Block on Certification of Election Results Because Petitioners Didn’t File In A “Timely Manner”

24

How stacked are the odds? The state’s top court ruled to reverse Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough’s temporary injunction because the petitioners had failed to file their challenge in a “timely manner.”

Absurd and dangerous.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overturns Block on Certification of Election Results

By Janita Kan, The Epoch Times, November 28, 2020 Updated: November 29, 2020:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday overturned a lower court’s order blocking election officials from certifying the results of the 2020 election. The court also dismissed the case with prejudice.

In an unsigned opinion, the state’s top court ruled to reverse Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough’s temporary injunction that would have prevented the state from taking further steps to complete the certification of the presidential race.

The court said the petitioners had failed to file their challenge in a “timely manner,” as they had filed their suit more than one year after the enactment of Act 77—the law central to the case.

The case at hand—cited as Kelly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—was filed by a group of Republican politicians who argue that Act 77, a law that made voting by mail without an excuse legal in Pennsylvania, violates the state’s constitution.

The lawsuit alleges that the state law is “another illegal attempt to override the limitations on absentee voting prescribed in the Pennsylvania Constitution, without first following the necessary procedure to amend the constitution to allow for the expansion.”

Earlier this week, McCullough granted an emergency request by the plaintiffs to temporarily block the certification after the Keystone state announced it was poised to finalize the process of formal certification for the presidential election results.

The Commonwealth judge explained in her opinion, issued on Friday, that the “petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment.”

She also opined that the “petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene” the plain language of the provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which deals with absentee voting.

The state Supreme Court said on Saturday that the petitioners waited until days before the county of boards of election were required to certify the election results, which could “result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters” who voted by mail.

“It is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim,” the court wrote.

Chief Justice Thomas Saylor issued a separate opinion agreeing to reverse the preliminary injunction. However, Saylor said he believes the Republican petitioners should still be able to argue their case about the constitutional validity of Act 77.

“I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme,” Saylor wrote.

Justice Sallie Mundy joined in that opinion.

The lawyers of the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest