Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly’s lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called “no-excuse mail-in” voting regime.<\/p>\n Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case\u00a0outside the “safe harbor” window which requirest\u00a0<\/strong>that controversies “concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures” to be determined”\u00a0at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors,”<\/strong>\u00a0according to\u00a0Law & Crime<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly’s case, which\u00a0was rejected<\/a>\u00a0by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend.<\/p>\n According to Kelly’s filing, the ‘no-excuse mail-in’ voting scheme should only apply in a\u00a0limited number of circumstances<\/strong>, and that people must vote in person unless a narrow list of excuses applies. Thus, Act 77 and related election access laws should be invalidated – along with votes cast under it in the 2020 election.<\/p>\n More via\u00a0Law & Crime<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n In strict theory, the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to settle Pennsylvania constitutional issues, such as whether the state statute at question (Act 77) violates the state constitution.\u00a0\u00a0Generally<\/a>, such\u00a0matters<\/a>\u00a0are the exclusive realm of a state supreme court.\u00a0 But there are\u00a0exceptions<\/a>\u00a0to that\u00a0general concept<\/a>, Kelly argues, including here.\u00a0 Because the state is acting\u00a0under a \u201cdirect grant of authority\u201d from the U.S. Constitution<\/a>\u00a0to manage federal elections, the U.S. Supreme Court can become involved, he argues, and can determine\u00a0whether the Pennsylvania statutory and constitutional regime of laws violates the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 Kelly invites the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude as such and, perhaps more dubiously, that the state court\u2019s way of rubbishing the election violates his rights to petition the government and to receive due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto.\u00a0 He frames the issues this way:<\/p>\n 1. Do the Elections and Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution permit Pennsylvania to violate its state constitution\u2019s restrictions on its lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections?<\/p>\n 2. Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution permit the dismissal of Petitioners\u2019 claims with prejudice, on the basis of laches, where doing so foreclosed any opportunity for Petitioners to seek retrospective and prospective relief for ongoing constitutional violations?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The \u201celections clause\u201d of the U.S. Constitution is\u00a0Article I, \u00a7 4, clause 1<\/a>.\u00a0 This clause basically says state legislatures can set their own rules for elections:<\/p>\n The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/s3\/files\/inline-images\/samuel%20alito.jpg?itok=xKGtb_4N\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n