agree on all except nevada (possibly) & pennsylvania (probably).
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcre...-changes-in-pennsylvania-voting-rules-n268795
When the Pennsylvania Legislature refused to amend Pennsylvania election laws in a manner requested by Dem. Gov. Wolf, Democrat interest groups filed suit in Pennsylvania state court seeking the same changes.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court eventually issued a decision that granted the Plaintiffs some of the relief they had sought. Most significantly, the Court ordered that mailed ballots did not need to be received by elections officials on November 3 as required by statute, but could be accepted and counted so long as they arrived by November 6 — if they were postmarked on or before Nov. 3. The basis of making the change was that the Pennsylvania state constitution grants the judiciary authority to rewrite state laws to avoid constitutional infirmity.
The Pennsylvania GOP filed a challenge in the Supreme Court — based on a VERY interesting claim that has never been addressed by the Supreme Court.
The US Constitution, Article II. §1, Clause 2 states:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….
The Pennsylvania GOP is challenging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s extension of the ballot receipt deadline on the basis that the plain language of Art. II, Sec.1, cl. 2 states that the manner of selecting electors — which is what each state’s election actually accomplishes — is to be done as determined by the Legislature of each state, not by any court.
If successful, such an outcome would eliminate the ability of state courts to make changes to state election law on the eve of an election. Whichever party controls a state’s legislature would have control of the election process, independent of the state’s judiciary.
This issue was previously before the Court, but on a 4-4 vote, the Court was unable to act and the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stood.
But the composition of the Court is about to change. Judge Amy Coney Barrett could provide a needed fifth vote to invalidate the Pennsylvania court’s decision and establish a new Supreme Court precedent that would cut off many challenges to state election laws.
Click to expand...
