Which rule are we talking specifically? Because it looks like you're very wrong on every count
The lawsuit argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting was unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.
www.npr.org
Ok, now I'm pretty sure you're just messing with me. I complain specifically about the orders given by the courts in conflict with the legislature, and you link to an article about the rule that was changed by the legislature last year.
Mail-in voting in PA was passed through the PA legislature in 2019. All the proper procedure was done. That rule is law. That rule gave 50 days before the election to request and submit a ballot, with a deadline to return by the night of the election. All this crap people are saying in this thread about necessary additional changes is nonsense, PA as of last year adopted no-questions-asked mail in ballots with the longest submission period before the election in the country. The laws as written required a signature on the ballot envelope the same as the signature you give in person. The laws as written didn't establish de facto early voting at "satellite offices".
The courts, against the will of the legislature, against the people's representatives, decided that the deadline would be moved 3 days, the signatures would be ignored, the satellite offices would be allowed. All these things against the laws that the legislature wrote. I'm not linking them all again, I've done it several times.
What are you talking about? In the article you linked to, the court was acting because lawsuits were filed. Who is supposed to act on these lawsuits then? How was the court the originator of these orders?
By the freaking Democratic Party! The Democratic Party sued the state to change the election laws that they had absolutely no grounds to change, and partisan Democrats on the court went along with the charade because it was for their party.
Look at it this way: Trump has had people suing states constantly both before and after election trying to pull this same sort of crap, and most of it has been thrown out, as it should be. If Trump asked a court of mostly Trump loyalists to change election laws in his favor, and they did it even though by all measures they had no standing to do so, everyone here would freak out! I'm telling you that is what happened in my state, a political party sued the state to try and sneak in an election advantage, and the court did everything they asked.
As others have posted, what in the federal or state constitutions dictates late mail-in votes are not to be counted?
Nothing! But you have it backwards! The state and federal constitutions say nothing about whether mail-in votes must be counted or cannot be counted. There is no constitutional rule about it, state or federal. Thus, whichever way the legislature, who are tasked with writing the law, decides the election should be run with regards to mail-in deadlines, it's constitutional. There is nothing illegal about having a deadline to have mail-in ballots arrive by election day, so the court should have no say in it.
If either constitution specified specifically that late votes need to be counted to a certain point, and the legislature wrote a law setting an earlier deadline, then the courts could absolutely say "that law is unconstitutional, scrap it and start over." But if a law is constitutionally fine and not in conflict with any other law, courts don't get to add or remove things from the law based only on their preference. That's not the job of the judiciary.
I'd say you don't really understand the proscribed role of the judiciary very well.
You don't mean proscribed, that's not the correct word there.
ballotpedia.org
