Election Law That Helped Make Joe Biden President Struck Down as Unconstitutional – Opinion

For many, this will be a bittersweet decision. A five-judge panel has ruled that Pennsylvania’s universal mail-in voting law violates the state’s constitution, an argument conservatives have been making since it was enacted in 2019. This election law played a crucial role in the delivery of Pennsylvania to Joe Biden, who was in second place on Election Night but gained ground as more mail-in ballots were added.

The court’s decision essentially made the case that any law to make mail-in ballots universal versus only being allowed in defined circumstances needed to come via an amendment to the state’s constitution, given the current language. That was the same case former President Donald Trump’s legal team attempted to make. The courts dismissed their challenge at that time. Now, though it’s far too late to change things, there is some vindication happening on that front.

Below is some of Mary Levitt’s writings in regard to the decision not to enforce the law.

A constitutional amendment that would eliminate Article VII Section 1 of the requirement for in-person vote is most likely to be approved if it’s presented to the people. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation allowing no-excuse mail-in voting can ‘be placed upon our statute books.

Pennsylvania’s Constitution has very specific language regarding who is eligible to receive an absentee vote. Deployed military members, those who are disabled, and those who can’t be in their precinct because of work on Election Day are some examples.

What will happen next? We have the answer. Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration is going to appeal the decision. The appeal will be made to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court. This court has a majority of Democrats and has previously dismissed a previous challenge to the law due to a technicality. From there, it’s likely that they’ll reinstate the mail-in voting law, despite the constitutional conflicts that exist. The judiciary has become an activist arm for Democrats in this era. Although you may be waiting with bated breath to hear how a Republican-nominated Judge will rule, judges who are elected by Democrats tend to vote in lockstep.

However, if the law were to be struck down, that would mean a victory for Republicans who want normalized elections in the next midterms. I believe universal mail-in votes, particularly when they are combined with extended periods of early voting, and loose identification standards, is a hindrance to free and fair elections. If one can physically get up to go to the polls, there is some responsibility. It is easy to corrupt mass mail-in ballots, which can also be used for ballot harvesting. This should not be allowed.

The idea that the “right to vote” only exists in the absence of any and all guardrails is moronic. But that’s the argument Democrats are making all over the country, including in Pennsylvania. Why not allow people to vote from their smartphones? Heck, let’s have a full year of early voting. If all procedures and protections qualify as voter suppression, as Democrats claim, then what’s the argument for not just blowing up everything?

Nevertheless, Democrats are likely to support the argument. Everything is about power. The preservation of the integrity of the country’s institutions, including the voting process, is not on their radar.

About Post Author

Follow Us