Democrats use of illegal votes to disenfranchise legal voters

 Clarice Feldman:

A few days ago, I forwarded a note about the proposed joint resolutions of the Pennsylvania legislators to refuse to certify the results of a patently fraudulent election. I got a response which certainly anticipates the Democrats’ talking points: “Disenfranchising voters is not what conservatives do.”

Of course not. It's what Democrats do by diluting their votes time and again with illegal and nonexistent voters. Refusing to recognize fraud by removing such votes from the tally at certification time is what conservatives should do. To fail to do so is to ensure that we will never have free, honest elections again and legal voters voting in accord with relevant laws will be disenfranchised while illegal and nonexistent voters will win.  Scott Adams observes correctly that when people lose confidence in the regularity of elections, the orderly respect for government  and the willingness to comply with it will end. To fail to do so, as well, means the legislatures in these states will  have gelded themselves by refusing to enforce their prerogatives under the law. In the meantime, while state legislatures ponder their responsibilities, a large number of election challenges are being litigated around the country.  Here are the most significant ones.

Pennsylvania

Prior Supreme Court Ruling

The rule changes permitting the mail-in ballots’ deadline extension has already been heard by the Supreme Court when Justice Barrett had not yet been confirmed. While the Court said late-arriving ballots must be segregated it indicated it was likely to rehear the matter post-election. That case does not involve  all of the issues respecting the mail in ballots -- the failure to verify and match signatures on mail-in ballots as required by law was not then under consideration -- though the issue may have been preserved as it had been raised in the lower court. 

Present Injunction against Certification

The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed various circumstances concerning disenfranchisement of votes. For instance, it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Reynolds, which established the “one person, one vote” doctrine, is the seminal case on voter dilution. Under this concept, a mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in Pa. Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

This language is from the ruling of a Pennsylvania state court judge who has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from perfecting its certification of the election and the appointment of electors or submitting the paperwork on electors to the Electoral College. The injunction is in effect until there is a full evidentiary hearing and is designed to preserve the status quo until the charges are investigated and adjudicated.

The charges are that the mail-in provisions of Pennsylvania Act 77 are at odds with the plain language of Pennsylvania Constitution Article VII, Section 14....

...

 At the same time representatives of the Pennsylvania State General Assembly have filed a resolution to refuse to certify the results of the election to the Electoral College, something they are not authorized to do until December 8. The resolutions are scheduled to be heard this Monday. Under the U.S. Constitution, the legislature has the perfect right to refuse to certify or to pick another set of electors.  Neither the state Supreme Court nor election officials can rob the legislature of its prerogative under the U.S. Constitution.

Congress can determine whether to accept or reject the forwarded electoral panels and has in the past. And I remind you again that the House votes on this issue by state and the Republicans hold the largest number of states, something even CNN acknowledges. They can undo certifications of compromised elections and appoint a clean slate of electors.

 ...

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is acting as an adjunct to the Democrat party.  Its ruling helped create the mess in Pennsylvania by extending the deadline for votes beyond that authorized by the legislature and doing so in violation of the US Constitution.  While courts in Pennsylvania have been hostile to the challenges to this obvious bad decision, if the cases ever get to the US Supreme Court it is likely that the votes that came in after the legislative deadline would be disallowed.