A decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that shakes the election system appears to have prevented a constitutional crisis. The high court of Pennsylvania has decided that mail-in ballots that are in violation of the law on improper dating should be set aside and not counted Election night.
In October, RedState’s Bonchie published an article that detailed the attempt to smear laws by Democrats and the inexplicably and unconstitutional method of counting invalid votes.
As RedState previously reported, the Supreme Court vacated a state court decision requiring Pennsylvania to count un-dated mail-in ballots. The plain letter of the law requires that a mail-in ballot must be filled, signed, and dated in order to be counted. Despite that, Democrat state officials have pledged to defy the law, giving guidance to counties that they not only should un-dated ballots be counted, but they aren’t even required to be sequestered pending further legal action.
Their reasoning? That voters shouldn’t be disenfranchised based on a “technical violation.”
Who gets to decide what “technical violations” can be ignored? That would seem to be a dangerous road to go down in regards to simply shunning the law based on an arbitrary judgment by a partisan state official. Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law isn’t ambiguous. It pointedly says that ballots must be dated to be counted.
However, due to a new decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the ballots will not count on the night of elections. Instead, they are to remain set aside in case of further legal proceeding.
It was reported that the United States Supreme Court had already overturned a previous decision in Pennsylvania which ordered the counting of invalid ballots. This was a contentious matter during the election of 2020.
In reaction on the US Supreme Court's decision, Democrats decided to essentially ignore it, citing a nonbinding ruling by a lower court judge. Furthermore, the officials from the state (all of which were Democrats) did not have to require the ballots with questionable content to be set aside pending legal proceedings that could see them being ruled unadmissible during the coming election. In essence the Democrats were trying to put the invalid ballots through the machines in the hopes that they could get many through without a way to rectify the issue in the future.
It was in the spirit of some of the Biden administration's tactics in which the president has decided to go against the law with the intent of getting what he wants before the courts have the chance to step in. The eviction moratorium that is now struck down is an excellent example of this. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stopping the mail-in ballots one week before mid-term elections shows that maybe the courts are becoming wise to the tactics of the left.
There's a possibility that the invalid ballots will be considered at a later time, but there's plenty of reason to believe that this won't occur. Even if there's a possibility that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is split equally on this issue, is it really willing to alter the outcome of an election weeks or months after it's been concluded?
It's very unlikely that they'll be able to ignore the law to this extent. The courts aren't meant to be affected by external reactions, but there are likely some limits to the extent to which they'd like to go. Imagine a world where Republican Mehmet Oz is elected at the end of election night. Then Democrat John Fetterman is declared the winner three months later and flips the control of the US Senate back to the Democratic Party. This would be terrible.
However, this whole thing was never supposed to get to this point. There are Democrats stating that they will ignore the lawful elections laws because they believe there is a political benefit in this. Although this decision is a good thing, more must be done to deter and punish this kind of behavior in the near future. If Americans aren't confident that their laws regarding elections will be observed, then the country can’t be saved.