No key to the keystone state

I wrote yesterday about the state trial court injunction prohibiting the governor and secretary of state from taking any further steps to perfect certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court promptly vacated the trial court order and dismissed the case with prejudice. Bill Jacobson comments:

The question on everyone’s mind is whether the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case. My first reaction is that it’s hard to see on what basis SCOTUS would take the case given the nature of the ruling and the posture of the case. Unlike claims of fraud or other problems with voting that violated legislative enactments, here the mail-in provisions of the legislation itself is being challenged. But it is only challenged after the vote has taken place, unlike the late-ballot and other provisions that were challenged in advance, and unlike claims of fraud or miscount.

Two things are possible: The mail-in procedures violated the PA Constitution, and the petitioners waited too long to raise that objection. As I’ve written many times, one of the Republican legal problems in these litigations is what the remedy would be. Throwing the case to the legislature based on the mail-in procedure after the vote is asking a lot, perhaps too much.

In this circumstance, I think it will be hard for the petitioners to get four SCOTUS judges to hear the case, much less five to reverse. Maybe I’ll be surprised, but that’s my initial reaction.

At PJ Media Matt Margolis notes the efforts of Republican legislators to decertify the results. As Bill intimates, the same “too little too late” rationale likely applies to their efforts.

Responses