Now PA Repubs are claiming PA's entire vote-by-mail law is unconstitutional. I may regret this as I've seen only the parts @bradheath has tweeted, but here goes:

It seems this suit is falsely premised on a belief that a requirement in PA's constitution is also a limitation.

I shall now pause this thread to read the complaint...

That's just the complaint; I've not yet seen a brief with citations to any PA court decisions on which they're relying. Yet, I persist...

Here's the primary provision on elections in PA's constitution: Art VII, Sec 4.

"All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot *or by such other method as may be prescribed by law*".

The Republican complaint focuses on Art VII, Sec 14, which says: "The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner" by which people who are absent (b/c of listed circumstances) or can't get to their polling place (b/c of listed circumstances) may nevertheless vote.

On the one hand, the Repub plaintiffs claim that, for people who do not come to vote in person, Sec 14 establishes an "exclusive" list of excuses for allowing those people to vote by mail.


Otoh, Sec 14 on its face doesn't say that. Nothing on its face suggests it embodies a limitation. Sec 14 tells the legislature what it "shall" do; it doesn't tell the legislature what it may not do.


FUN FACT: While PA Republicans are now claiming Act 77 is unconstitutional... the PA Repub Party just two months ago told the PA Supreme Ct that that very same Act 77 embodied "a grand bipartisan compromise" to modernize the state's election system.


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Ira Goldman 🦆🦆🦆

Ira Goldman 🦆🦆🦆 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KDbyProxy

19 Nov
RUDY: "This is representative of our legal team." Image
"Why is Rudy Giuliani complaining about male ballots?" Image
To bolster his allegation that Republican observers weren't able to effectively witness ballot processing in Philly, Rudy invokes a scene from "My Cousin Vinny"… but in that scene, Vinny shows that a witness couldn't have seen what happened *because* she needed new glasses. 🥸 Image
Read 7 tweets
24 Aug
Since the RNC has said it's sticking with its 2016 platform, let's look back at some of the things it said and see how well President Trump has done so far meeting its goals.

Separation of powers. ❌
Rule of law. ❌
Opposition to bigotry. ❌

Enforce laws as written. ❌
No Executive Orders that impinge on role of Congress. ❌
No appointments without Senate confirmation. ❌
Consult with Congress regarding military actions. ❌

Don't let yourself be enabled by Congress when you circumvent its role.❌
Don't support government control of political speech. ❌

Read 5 tweets
11 Aug
Ever since Sen Blumenthal tweeted this, lots of people have been pressing him, "You're protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, so go to the Senate floor & tell America what those classified documents say."

Except that wouldn't work. Literally.

Why? Permit me to explain.

About the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause: Yes, if a senator reveals classified information while speaking on the Senate floor, the S/D Clause protects the senator from being prosecuted for that.

But then there are the rules of the Senate.

Under the Senate's rules, a senator can be censured or even expelled for revealing classified information – but that's not why I mentioned them.

I mentioned them b/c under the Senate rules a senator can also be stopped from speaking if what s/he's saying violates any rule…

Read 12 tweets
29 May
HOT TAKE: The vast majority of Americans will see nothing alarming about this clip from the Flynn-Kislyak conversation.

Indeed, some who've been troubled by "Flynn secretly talked to Russia's ambassador" might look at these details and say, "Wait, what's the problem here?"

It's not that there's no problem here. It's that the vast majority of Americans have no context to see a problem here. Tbf, why would they? "So Obama sent home a lot of Russians… and then Flynn asked this Russian not to get pissed and send home even more of our guys? So…?"

I'm not saying this means Flynn should get a pass.

I am saying: If you thought the Flynn-Kislyak transcript would put Flynn in a bad light and the public's view of him would therefore change… if the rest of it reads like this, I don't see it accomplishing that.

Read 7 tweets
20 Mar
This is a thread about Senator Burr's stock sales – from someone who handled ethics compliance for 8 years in a senator's office.

FTR, at the start my boss put his stock in a blind trust; even then, b/c most of what went in was from one company…

… and b/c we inescapably knew that much of it wasn't sold (something that's obvious from the tax information provided by the trustee)*, he also abstained from voting on matters that could affect that company's business.

(* – my boss also released his tax returns every year)

So, those are the basics of my story. Now, onto what Burr did.

It's been reported the Senate health committee (on which Burr sits) had a coronavirus briefing for all senators on Jan 24. What did investors know around that time? Here are some NYT headlines from Jan 24-28…

Read 12 tweets
7 Feb
I decided to do a separate thread on this b/c it's small stuff & it's funny – at least ex-Hill-staffer funny.

So here's the letter Grassley & Johnson sent to Treasury for info on Hunter Biden & on page 2 they reference their authority to request it. And if you look closely…

... you'll see in the footnote they cite as their authority S Res 62 from the 114th Congress.

Being the ex-staffer that I am, I decided to look up S Res 62 from the 114th Congress...

And when I looked up S Res 62 from the 114th Congress, here's what I found...

Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!