politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I know, I know we are on lemmy, where all judges are wrong and evil, but this actually seems pretty cut and dry.
Act No. 320 of 1937 ("Pennsylvania Election Code"). Section 1306-D:
Abridged:
The "correct date" is any date before or on the day of the election, according to the code. A judge reads and interprets the written law, and this seems like a simple read.
The counter argument to the apparently unanimous reading of the law by all parties presented in court hinged on: "Pennsylvania's constitution, which says that elections in the state 'shall be free and equal' " making the law itself unconstitutional, which I'm not surprised wasn't very persuasive. Ballot envelopes without written dates were presumably treated equally (as opposed to being treated differently based on the vote cast) and the state didn't interfere with the ability to fill out the date. The rules were laid down and everyone who followed them had their vote counted equally.
I can already hear people in the comments screaming about how they don't like it. The standards for the mail-in ballots have been there since 1937 and nobody had a problem with them until right this moment when it looked like letting them slide might flip a close election. If you still don't like them, pressure the legislature, not the judges. There's not a ton of wiggle room in how to read the code.
If judges didn't want to be looked at with suspicion, then they should stop collectively consenting to dipshit interpretations of the law. It might not be so in this particular instance, but it popped up a pretty convenient time, politically speaking.