Pennsylvania Judge Says Election Likely Unconstitutional – Expects Republican Win – Affirms State Legislators Power to Choose Electors

HARRISBURG, PA – According to a Memorandum of Opinion by Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough on Friday, the PA preliminary election certification injunction that took place on November 21, was properly issued, and should be upheld. The move bars further certification of state results, allowing the legislature to choose the states electors.

Further noted in the memorandum, the Pennsylvania trial judge said the election process, particularly related to mail-in ballots, was likely unconstitutional noting that the petitioners were “likely to succeed” in further legal efforts. The judge affirmed the right of PA legislature to choose electors.

“Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pennsylvania Constitutional Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.”

According to Pennsylvania Senator Doug Mastriano, “The whole process has been corrupted.” That the case made from eyewitnesses heard in Wednesday’s hearing was “so compelling,” and was a turning point.  

To no surprise, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf and other state officials are not happy with the ruling made by Judge McCullough on Friday filing an appeal and saying,

“Since the birth of our nation nearly 250 years ago, no court has ever issued an order purporting to interfere with a state’s ascertainment of its presidential electors — until today,”

UPDATE NOVEMBER 29, 2020 8:27 PM EASTERN: Last night, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s block on certifying the state’s elections issued Friday night. The reason was that the Supreme Court said the suit was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to file their case in a “timely manner” when Act 77 was passed in 2019.