26 Misinformation about US Supreme Court ruling on Pennsylvania Appeal – What you need to know

1. The fake news headline about a US Supreme Court ruling on an appeal filed by Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell is far from the truth. The news headline claim that the Pennsylvania appeal is all over, stating the Supreme Court outrightly “struck” out the case. This is sheer misinformation.

2. The substantive appeal before the US Supreme Court is in respect to an earlier ruling by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court on Act 77. Act 77 was signed into law in October 2019, permitting universal mail-in ballots in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

3. The Constitution of Pennsylvania, which is about the oldest in the United States, gives two options for how voting can be conducted, In-Person Voting and Absentee with an Excuse.

4. The Pennsylvania Constitution also require that to change any section of the Constitution the General Assembly must convene at least twice. Secondly, the proposed change must be widely published in a newspaper(s) so that voters in every county are adequately informed, and thirdly a referendum must be conducted for voters to vote on the proposed change to a section of the Constitution before it can be enacted into law.

5. Without meeting any of the three criteria, the executive branch of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with the active support of the legislature passed Act 77 into law, which essentially permitted universal mail-in voting that allows voters in the state not to have an excuse to vote by mail, and they can be absent for no reason.

6. Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell believe that Act 77 is in gross violation of the Constitution. They, therefore, sought the court to nullify Act 77 for gross violation of the state constitution, and by extension, void the certification of the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.

7. While hearing the case earlier, a Pennsylvania Judge, Patricia McCullough, granted a temporary injunction restraining the certification of the presidential election in the state pending the determination of the case in her court.

8. In a swift reaction, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Josh Shapiro objected to the ruling of Patricia McCullough and filed a complaint at the Pennsylvania state supreme court.

9. The Pennsylvania supreme court ruled Judge McCullough out of order, dismissing Mike Kelly’s lawsuit based on a legal doctrine called “lashes”, which essentially means Mike Kelly waited too long to challenge Act 77. That any objection to the passage of Act 77 into law should have been done earlier but not after an election was conducted.

10. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania state supreme court never objected to the fact that the process that led to Act 77 was in gross violation of the constitution of Pennsylvania.

11. While providing an additional brief on the case after the Pennsylvania state supreme court ruling, Judge Patricia McCullough categorically stated that Mike Kelly was in a position to win the case on merit at a higher court.

12. Mike Kelly did not just file an appeal at the US Supreme, but the apex court docketed the case, which means it was ready to hear the appeal.

13. However, Mike Kelly, also, filed an emergency injunctive appeal, which essentially requested the Supreme Court to either determine the case urgently or restrain the state of Pennsylvania from certifying the results of the presidential election in the state.

14. The reason for the injunctive appeal is not unconnected to the “Safe Habour” deadline of December 8; a deadline required by the US Constitution for states to certify election results, “after ALL disputes are resolved”.

15. The first response of the Supreme Court was contained in order by Justice Samuel Alito, who requested the state of Pennsylvania to respond to Mike Kelly’s motion on or before 9th December 2020.

16. The order of the Justice of the Supreme Court was widely misconstrued as it seemed to suggest that the apex court was not going to grant the injunctive relief, thus allowing the certification of the Pennsylvania election by December 8.

17. As a result, Alito brought forward the date to 8th December which then suggested the Supreme Court could grant the injunctive relief that would restrain the certification of the presidential election in Pennsylvania on December 8.

18. But the Supreme Court denied the request without sighting any reason. And boom the media mobsters went into town to erroneously claim the Supreme Court struck out the case.

19. But the truth is that the substantive case against Act 77 is still pending before the Supreme court.

20. By seeking an injunctive relief to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying the election result, Mike Kelly obviously assumed that a favourable ruling by the Supreme Court would not affect an already certified election result.

21. But by denying the request for an injunctive relief while still retaining the case, the Supreme has only passed a message that the safe harbour deadline is inconsequential when the apex court finally rules on the case.

22. The US Constitution is clear on the Safe Habour Deadline. The clause “after ALL disputes are resolved”, raises a big question against states quickly certifying election results in the midst of pending litigations in court, and disputes by the legislature.

23. The precedent to this was set in the case of Bush vs Al Gore, the Supreme Court judgement was passed on the 12th December 2000, and that was after the “Safe Habour” deadline of December 8. That as shortly before the electors met to cast their votes.

24. In other words, the Supreme Court does not have to grant injunctive relief on a case it will soon be delivering a substantive ruling. Doing so will amount to meddling in the administrative functions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A state court can do that but not the apex court, especially when it is not overly essential, else the Supreme could be seen to be “petty”.

25. The Supreme may likely give a substantive ruling on the matter on or before December 14 when state electors meet to cast their votes.

26. So, forget the hysteria about the Supreme Court Verdict. Nothing Has Changed. Trump is Coming.

Enenche Enenche