Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chuckie512 t1_iuuseea wrote

Reply to comment by IrrumaboMalum in For those worried about the PA Supreme Court’s ruling on undated ballots, it may be of some relief to you that this year’s ballot envelope is VERY unambiguous. While I personally find the ruling utterly preposterous I’d also say that the ballot itself is competently designed to compensate for it. by Trapezoidoid

What materially stops a vote from being validated if it doesn't have a have written date on it?

They're already banned from even accepting votes that arrive after election day.

3

IrrumaboMalum t1_iuut6r8 wrote

So we need to push to change the law. It is ridiculous and it needs to go.

But just because it is stupid doesn't mean we can just ignore the law and do it how we want to do it.

5

thenewtbaron t1_iuv1y95 wrote

Well, because a law is stupid isn't a reason but it being invalidated by existing or new laws is a typical way of changing laws.

Like, if the federal government has a law that says, "you can't invalidate ballots received by election day for reasons that do not pertain to the citizen's ability to vote such as Identity or citizenship"

If the state makes a law that says, "you must kiss each envelope with love before mailing it"

People can argue that being able to kiss an envelope or kiss it with love is not pertinent to the actual voting process, to the verification of citizenship or identity, so it doesn't meet federal rules.

This is putting a date on the outside of the second outer envelope, it is immaterial. to me, this is like the idea of every person showing up for in-person voting will have to show their feet to the poll workers before they could vote, not relevant, even if it is the law.

Typically, determining if a law is a currently valid one has been done through the courts. It is part of the redress that we as citizens are allowed to do by the first amendment. Citizens are going to the courts because they see a potential of this being a thing that could be abused, with no actual benefits to the election/voting process. Some folks see this as something that could be used much in the same way as literacy poll tests were used by some in the south. Especially without a standardized way to respond with the date, and depending on who is looking at it, is 11/3/22, 11/3/2022, 11/03/2022, November 3rd 2022, Nov. 3rd 2022 and all of the permutations could cause someone to be denied.

6

IrrumaboMalum t1_iuv2myd wrote

Then push to change the law - this is the third time I've said that. Clearly the PA Supreme Court sees nothing wrong with the law and the SCOTUS does not either since it remanded it back to the state court, effectively nulling the Third Circuit decision.

Sure, you can just ignore the law - but then don't whine and complain when your vote is discarded for failing to adhere to state election requirements. Sometimes civil disobedience works, sometimes it doesn't. This is one time where civil disobedience won't work.

1

thenewtbaron t1_iuv4dqd wrote

Your response does not make sense to the statement.

They asked "what materially stops a vote from being validated without a date" and you said, "well, it might be stupid but we still have to follow it"

Sure, no one is debating that. However, you seem to think that going through the legislature is the only way of dealing with laws when that isn't exactly true. And no, I am not talking about civil disobedience.

and if that is what you got from the supreme court's decision, you may want to read it closer. They invalidated the case because it was moot. meaning that the decision does not matter anymore. The PA supreme court has gone along with the law as is, however a concerning part of that decision was the "incorrectly" dated envelope segregation. that calls up what I said in the last message. what does "incorrectly" dated envelopes look like?

4

IrrumaboMalum t1_iuv4stj wrote

Nothing - except the legal requirement under Pennsylvania state law. That is the root of the problem, and that is what needs addressed.

2

thenewtbaron t1_iuv6rb5 wrote

Sure, and once again, there are other ways than forcing legislators from rewriting the law to change the laws, such as it being found invalid vs other laws, such as the courts.

The PA supreme court was pretty split on it, and the us supreme court allowed the ballots to be counted in june/july which led to the republican candidate losing, then they said the decision was moot. So they didn't actually make a decision on a thing in a wider context, just a very narrow context.

but hey, that's fine. stupid republican laws can exist.... and now they can't complain about it for this election.

1