PA House Leaders File Brief to SUPPORT Texas Election Lawsuit AGAINST Their OWN STATE! - Granite Grok

PA House Leaders File Brief to SUPPORT Texas Election Lawsuit AGAINST Their OWN STATE!

Trump’s Supreme Court List

Pennsylvania’s House Speaker Bryan Cutler and Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff know the election in Pennsylvania was filled with massive fraud that was enabled by Democrat election officials and justices.  The House Leadership team filed an amici curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support the Texas lawsuit (with 18 other states) against their own state of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

Related: BOOM! NINE MORE STATES Join Texas Lawsuit Against PA, MI, WI and GA For Unlawful General Election!

The brief by the two Pennsylvania House Leaders stated;

“The House Leaders have personal and direct insight into both the goals of the General Assembly in its recent amendments to the Pennsylvania Election Code, and also in how state courts and outside actors have subverted those intentions via spurious lawsuits, extrajudicial Executive Branch guidance, and manipulation of election procedures at the county level. This wholesale evisceration of the Pennsylvania Election Code had a deleterious effect on the procedural safeguards put in place by the General Assembly.

The brief defines concerns that the Court’s unconstitutional changes to the mail-in voting procedures,

“proved to be an easy target for those seeking to manipulate election procedures.”

The House Leaders correctly state that the Constitutional responsibility to make all changes to election laws resides with the Legislature.  The brief points out the PA Supreme Court does not dispute that argument, but still chose to legislate from the bench.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, while recognizing that the statutory deadlines concerning absentee and mail- in ballots are ‘fully enshrined within the authority granted to the Legislature under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions’, used cases involving sudden natural disasters and its “extraordinary jurisdiction” to impose a three-day extension of the received-by deadline for absentee and mail-in ballots, regardless of date of postmark. Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345, 370-72 (Pa. 2020).4 In that same case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sanctioned the use of unmanned, unsecured dropboxes in contravention of the statutorily-defined procedures for mail-in voting.”

To ensure safe and fair elections, Pennsylvania election laws state that when absentee mail-in ballots are returned, the county board of elections must,

“examine the declaration on the envelope of each ballot . . . and shall compare the information thereon with that contained in the ‘Registered Absentee and Mail-in Voters File,’ the absentee voters’ list and/or the ‘Military Veterans and Emergency Civilians Absentee Voters File.’”

However, those election safeguards were unconstitutionally removed by the PA Supreme Court for the General Election, as noted in the brief;

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court eviscerated the signature matching safeguard and held ‘that county boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons.'”

In a subsequent case before the PA Supreme Court (and before the General Election), the Court removed all other mechanisms for ensuring election integrity with mail-in ballots.

“the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed the term ‘fill out’ ambiguous, and held that an absentee or mail-in voter’s failure to handwrite the voter’s name and/or address on the security envelope was not a material violation of statutory directive to ‘fill out’ the declaration, thereby removing the last of the procedural safeguards for absentee and mail-in ballots.

In other words, that PA Supreme Court decision mandated that any ballot received within 3 days AFTER the election must still be counted – regardless of whether or not election officials could verify if an actual registered voter legally submitted the ballot.

Related: WAT??? Pennsylvania Sent Out 1.8M Mail-In Ballots, Counted 2.5M Mail-In Votes

To make it even easier for election fraud to run rampant, the brief goes on to say,

“Pennsylvania Courts and the County Boards of Elections also dispensed with the statutory requirements of allowing candidate and party representatives to meaningfully observe the counting of ballots. As an example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the procedures of the Philadelphia County Board of Elections, where properly credentialed representatives of the candidates were made to stand thirty-five (35) yards away from many of the ballots being counted.”

In their closing statement, the House Leadership team said,

“The Plaintiff and others have raised important questions about how this procedural malfeasance affected the 2020 General Election.”

The above shenanigans of the PA Supreme Court and Election Officials should disturb every American.  When we went to sleep on election night, President Trump was ahead of Biden by nearly 800,000 votes – an impossible lead to legally overcome.

Remember when Joe Biden bragged about having the “most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics”? When he said that, was he inferring the “voter fraud organization” included justices in the battleground states?

 

 

>