Legal Catch-22 in PA?

[Puppycow]

In Pennsylvania, Republicans control both houses of the state legislature.

The law in question was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature by strong majorities in both houses.

The state House of Representatives on Tuesday advanced the bill in a 138-61 vote. Later that day, the state Senate approved it in a 35-14 vote.

Numerous lawmakers on both sides of the aisle joined the governor in applauding the new law.

"This bill was not written to benefit one party or the other, or any one candidate or single election," said House Majority Leader Bryan Cutler, a Republican who represents the 100th District. "It was developed over a multi-year period with input of people from different backgrounds and regions of Pennsylvania."

The plaintiffs are now arguing that a law passed by over two-thirds majorities in both Houses of the legislature, in which Republicans held the majority in both Houses, was unconstitutional.

Since they did not raise an objection at the time, laches a defense.

Who would have had standing to challenge the law is moot if nobody even tried to. Candidates? Probably. Voters? Sure, why not? They would be affected by the law.

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

I don't think that "the wrong person won" is a "harm" in the legal sense. They would have had to show that the law would have disenfranchised them, or somehow harmed them in some way.

 

[Horatius]

I don't think that "the wrong person won" is a "harm" in the legal sense. They would have had to show that the law would have disenfranchised them, or somehow harmed them in some way.

One argument I saw was that people who voted in person had less time to vote (one day vs. several weeks) as compared to those who voted by mail, and that this was effectively discriminatory to in-person voters.

Of course, this falls apart when you realize that every voter had the option of voting by mail. Those who opted to vote in person made a choice to limit themselves, it was not imposed on them by anyone else. That far more Republicans than Democrats made this choice doesn't matter, it was still their choice.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In the request for injunction, they wrote the following

On March 19, 2019, the Pennsylvania General Assembly introduced a joint resolution to amend Article VII, § 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution in order to drastically expand absentee voting – permitting all voters to do so without an excuse. See Senate Bill 411, 2019 (later incorporated into Senate Bill 413). App. pp.43-44, ¶ 36. The legislative history of the proposed amendment recognizes that “Pennsylvania’s current Constitution restricts voters wanting to vote by absentee ballot to [specific] situations…” Senator Mike Folmer & Senator Judith Schwank, Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda to S.B. 411 (Jan. 29, 2019, 10:46 AM), https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=S& SPick=20190&cosponId=28056. App. p.44, ¶ 37. The amendment proposes to “eliminate these limitations, empowering voters to request and submit absentee ballots for any reason – allowing them to vote early and by mail.” Id.

A) is this true?

B) if true, can we say the legislature thinks 77 is constitutional?

 

[pgwenthold]

The plaintiffs are now arguing that a law passed by over two-thirds majorities in both Houses of the legislature, in which Republicans held the majority in both Houses, was unconstitutional.

Since they did not raise an objection at the time, laches a defense.

To be fair, it is possible for a 2/3 majority to pass unconstitutional laws. The bigger problem is that the same people who passed the laws are now supporting having them overturned.

And oh, yeah, that part about it was perfectly fine until they lost, too.

 

[pgwenthold]

Who would have had standing to challenge the law is moot if nobody even tried to. Candidates? Probably. Voters? Sure, why not? They would be affected by the law.
.

I disagree that the voters would have standing. They may be "affected" by the law, but how are they harmed? They'd have to show how allowing others to use mail in votes harmed them, since they were allowed to use mail-in voting, too, if they wanted to.

Something like that came up in the federal case in PA. The voters sued because others were allowed to cure their vote, and these folks weren't. The judge denied standing because they were complaining about policies in other counties that didn't apply to them. If they were to sue anyone, they should be suing their own counties that didn't let them cure their vote. In other words, the other county allowing voters to cure their vote did not harm you.

In this case, it's even worse because the plaintiffs (voters) would already have the same rights, so the fact that others utilize it does not mean you are harmed.

I think the candidate has a stronger argument on the grounds that if it is unconstitutional, then illegal votes will be counted.