PA Election Law

#1
V

Vol Main

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
12,777
Likes
4,433
#1
Opposition to certifying the 2020 Election centers around claims that local election commissions did not follow law established by the state legislature. I have seen this claim made numerous times, in regard to the vote count in Pennsylvania. How many people posting such claims in this forum actually read Pennsylvania law before their post? None is my guess. So let's have a look at the Pennsylvania statutes governing elections and local election commissions. That look will show that voter(electors) casting absentee ballots are indeed required to sign the envelopes. Unsigned ballots can be challenged and held back from the count. The election commission must give a public notice of the challenges and conduct hearings for each, allowing both the challenger and the challenged voter to present their case. So the local election commissions in Pennsylvania who allowed registered voters with unsigned absentee ballots to represent themselves in a hearing were following Pennsylvania law that was on the books at the date of the election. That process was written into law by the state legislature.

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
Act of Mar. 27, 2020, P.L. 41, No. 12 Cl. 25

Session of 2020

No. 2020-12


"(iv) Following the close of the polls, the county board shall record and publish the votes reflected on the ballots.

(5) [With respect to the challenged ballots, they] Ballots received whose applications have been challenged and ballots which have been challenged shall be placed unopened in a secure, safe and sealed container in the custody of the county board until it shall fix a time and place for a formal hearing of all such challenges, and notice shall be given where possible to all absentee electors and mail-in electors thus challenged and to every individual who made a challenge. The time for the hearing shall not be later than [five (5)] seven (7) days after the [date of the challenge] deadline for all challenges to be filed. On the day fixed for said hearing, the county board shall proceed without delay to hear said challenges, and, in hearing the testimony, the county board shall not be bound by the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. The testimony presented shall be stenographically recorded and made part of the record of the hearing.

(6) The decision of the county board in upholding or dismissing any challenge may be reviewed by the court of common pleas of the county upon a petition filed by any person aggrieved by the decision of the county board. The appeal shall be taken, within two (2) days after the decision was made, whether the decision was reduced to writing or not, to the court of common pleas setting forth the objections to the county board's decision and praying for an order reversing the decision.

(7) Pending the final determination of all appeals, the county board shall suspend any action in canvassing and computing all challenged ballots received under this subsection irrespective of whether or not appeal was taken from the county board's decision. Upon completion of the computation of the returns of the county, the votes cast upon the challenged official absentee ballots that have been finally determined to be valid shall be added to the other votes cast within the county.

2020 Act 12
 
#8
#8
MG1968 said:
Awesome. I’m cutting you a check for .01 cent. Copying and pasting other’s work isn’t exactly exhaustive research or hard work.
Click to expand...

The only thing copied and pasted is the State of Pennsylvania Statute. Please try to understand that I could not be the author of that because I am not the State Legislature of Pennsylvania. The point of my original post stands. The caterwauling of Republican politicians and Trump supporters about the PA election commission not following state law is just another lie, which anyone, even you, can fact check by reading the statute.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#10
#10
Vol Main said:
The only thing copied and pasted is the State of Pennsylvania Statute. Please try to understand that I could not be the author of that because I am not the State Legislature of Pennsylvania. The point of my original post stands. The caterwauling of Republican politicians and Trump supporters about the PA election commission not following state law is just another lie, which anyone, even you, can fact check by reading the statute.
Click to expand...
479A06F0-5D28-4CF2-BE70-CA78B8CE4A44.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO, Orangeslice13, AM64 and 2 others
#11
#11
Vol Main said:
Opposition to certifying the 2020 Election centers around claims that local election commissions did not follow law established by the state legislature. I have seen this claim made numerous times, in regard to the vote count in Pennsylvania. How many people posting such claims in this forum actually read Pennsylvania law before their post? None is my guess. So let's have a look at the Pennsylvania statutes governing elections and local election commissions. That look will show that voter(electors) casting absentee ballots are indeed required to sign the envelopes. Unsigned ballots can be challenged and held back from the count. The election commission must give a public notice of the challenges and conduct hearings for each, allowing both the challenger and the challenged voter to present their case. So the local election commissions in Pennsylvania who allowed registered voters with unsigned absentee ballots to represent themselves in a hearing were following Pennsylvania law that was on the books at the date of the election. That process was written into law by the state legislature.

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
Act of Mar. 27, 2020, P.L. 41, No. 12 Cl. 25

Session of 2020

No. 2020-12


"(iv) Following the close of the polls, the county board shall record and publish the votes reflected on the ballots.

(5) [With respect to the challenged ballots, they] Ballots received whose applications have been challenged and ballots which have been challenged shall be placed unopened in a secure, safe and sealed container in the custody of the county board until it shall fix a time and place for a formal hearing of all such challenges, and notice shall be given where possible to all absentee electors and mail-in electors thus challenged and to every individual who made a challenge. The time for the hearing shall not be later than [five (5)] seven (7) days after the [date of the challenge] deadline for all challenges to be filed. On the day fixed for said hearing, the county board shall proceed without delay to hear said challenges, and, in hearing the testimony, the county board shall not be bound by the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. The testimony presented shall be stenographically recorded and made part of the record of the hearing.

(6) The decision of the county board in upholding or dismissing any challenge may be reviewed by the court of common pleas of the county upon a petition filed by any person aggrieved by the decision of the county board. The appeal shall be taken, within two (2) days after the decision was made, whether the decision was reduced to writing or not, to the court of common pleas setting forth the objections to the county board's decision and praying for an order reversing the decision.

(7) Pending the final determination of all appeals, the county board shall suspend any action in canvassing and computing all challenged ballots received under this subsection irrespective of whether or not appeal was taken from the county board's decision. Upon completion of the computation of the returns of the county, the votes cast upon the challenged official absentee ballots that have been finally determined to be valid shall be added to the other votes cast within the county.

2020 Act 12
Click to expand...
6302E64F-0652-4319-8A3D-F1CB22687EB4.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and davethevol
#13
#13
From my original post, "Opposition to certifying the 2020 Election centers around claims that local election commissions did not follow law established by the state legislature. How many people posting such claims in this forum actually read Pennsylvania law before their post? None is my guess."

Republicans read it on the radio.
 
#14
#14
Vol Main said:
From my original post, "Opposition to certifying the 2020 Election centers around claims that local election commissions did not follow law established by the state legislature. How many people posting such claims in this forum actually read Pennsylvania law before their post? None is my guess."

Republicans read it on the radio.
Click to expand...
Except it wasnt this issue that got punted out of the Supreme Court. It was dealing with election deadlines.

You brought up some minor argument to ignore the bigger. Which as it turns out is sticking as is so the necro effort on Trumps election is still dead.

U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear Pa. mail-ballot deadline case as election challenges meet dead end
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and AM64
#15
#15
Vol Main said:
From my original post, "Opposition to certifying the 2020 Election centers around claims that local election commissions did not follow law established by the state legislature. How many people posting such claims in this forum actually read Pennsylvania law before their post? None is my guess."

Republicans read it on the radio.
Click to expand...


There are lots of issues in PA that have nothing to do with what you posted. Ballots applications were being processed and accepted 13 days after the election. This is a fact that was verified. Watch the video

 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#16
#16
NEW PA Ballot Data | Here Is The Evidence

FACT 1: OpenDataPA allowed anyone to download the Mail Ballot Request CSV database showing the life cycle of every mail-in/absentee ballot, which PA periodically updates.


FACT 2: There have been 4 known versions up this database so far. A Nov 6th Version, Nov 10th Version, Nov 16th Version, and Dec 16th Version. The changes between versions were never disclosed to the public.
Anomalies and irregularities have been a found in all versions. The Nov 10th Version showed 23,305 ballots having a “Returned” date before their actual “Mailed” date. The Nov 16th Version change most of the ballots, leaving only 185 ballots with this anomaly. The December 16th version has only 181.​
With each updated version, ballots are deleted. There were 9,763 fewer ballot entries between the Nov 10th Version and Nov 16th Version. 3,687 fewer ballot entries between the Nov 16th Version and the December 16th Version.​
The Texas Lawsuit lays out many of the impossible anomalies from the Nov 10th Version.​

FACT 3: Access to the database was blocked on November 21st after viral videos drew public attention and then were unblocked on November 25th after Pennsylvania certified Vice President Joe Biden on November 24th.

FACT 4: On December 3rd, HereIsTheEvidence released the HereIsTheEvidence Analyzer to enable anyone (including journalists) to verify/find anomalies in election data.



The HereIsTheEvidence Analyzer was applied to the December 16th dataset and this is what was found:
1. 161,774 mail-in ballot records were changed between Nov 10th version and the Dec 16th Version. Of the changes, 116,840 ballots were given new return dates.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that any ballots without a postmark should “be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day” unless there was strong evidence to the contrary.
The evidence from official records show that 116,840 mail-in ballots have had changed “Return Date” entries between November 10th and December 16th.​


2. 69,004 ballots were marked “Returned” after November 3rd.
Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar reported on November 10th that only 10,000 ballots were received after November 3rd. She declared that same number to the Supreme Court on November 30th.​


3. 19,660 ballots were marked “Returned” after November 6th.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped established Pennsylvania legislation to allow ballots to be counted if received by November 6th. Ballots received after the 6th were to be rejected.
Pennsylvania rejected 7,411 in the 2020 election, as of November 20th.​


4. Counties allowed new ballots to be filled out after the election.
Pennsylvania’s deadline for mail-in applications was October 27th, yet new ballots were being filled out and submitted daily.
Berks county was filling out and submitting new ballots on November 16th.​


5. OpenDataPA has a visualizer to explore the current dataset, but it hides ballots received after November 3rd.
Until Pennsylvania updates their Visualizer to show all ballots, you can use the HereIsTheEvidence Analyzer to verify these claims.
Check out the code, it’s open source.​


6. As laid out in the Texas lawsuit, Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot anomalies at 118,426 affected ballots. The anomalies from this December 16th version shows:
  • 161,774 records have alterations
    • Of these alterations:
      • 116,840 were Returned Dates changes
      • 69,004 were marked “Returned” after Nov 3rd
      • 19,660 were marked “Returned” after Nov 6th
  • 13,450 ballots have been deleted since Nov 10th
  • 10,415 Return Date with no Mail Date
  • 5,052 Applications Returned after Ballot Mailed
  • 1,034 Applications Approved after Application Returned

Totaling: 191,725 mail-in ballots were touched by alterations, illegality, or anomalies according to data.PA.gov.

In Pennsylvania’s response to the Texas lawsuit, they did not address the mail-in ballot anomalies.
Mail-in ballots touched by alterations, illegality, or anomalies in Pennsylvania
Here-is-the-evidence-logo-1024x63.png



Resources
Download Nov 10th Version:
Download Nov 16th Version:
Download Dec 16th Version:
Get Analyzer and more Datasets
Verify yourself:

If you appreciate this research, please consider supporting this project.

Is there another fact that should be added to this Fact List? Submit a source to HereIsTheEvidence@protonmail.com
Posted 12/11/2020
Updated 12/28/2020
Crowdsourcing evidence for journalists.

Updated nightly.


Support our work and this free service:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#17
#17
Vol Main said:
From my original post, "Opposition to certifying the 2020 Election centers around claims that local election commissions did not follow law established by the state legislature. How many people posting such claims in this forum actually read Pennsylvania law before their post? None is my guess."

Republicans read it on the radio.
Click to expand...

You picked ONE law that was followed (I guess).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and VolinWayne
#19
#19
LouderVol said:
Its EL levels of intellectual dishonesty.

Completely ignore what people are actually saying in the supreme court, to bring up some DA reddit argument no one here is making, just to claim victory.
Click to expand...

Hey officer what's the problem? I might have been swerving, there's empty beer cans in the car, tags are expired and I have no insurance but I wasn't speeding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roustabout, AM64 and VolinWayne
#20
#20
Vol Main said:
Opposition to certifying the 2020 Election centers around claims that local election commissions did not follow law established by the state legislature. I have seen this claim made numerous times, in regard to the vote count in Pennsylvania. How many people posting such claims in this forum actually read Pennsylvania law before their post? None is my guess. So let's have a look at the Pennsylvania statutes governing elections and local election commissions. That look will show that voter(electors) casting absentee ballots are indeed required to sign the envelopes. Unsigned ballots can be challenged and held back from the count. The election commission must give a public notice of the challenges and conduct hearings for each, allowing both the challenger and the challenged voter to present their case. So the local election commissions in Pennsylvania who allowed registered voters with unsigned absentee ballots to represent themselves in a hearing were following Pennsylvania law that was on the books at the date of the election. That process was written into law by the state legislature.

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
Act of Mar. 27, 2020, P.L. 41, No. 12 Cl. 25

Session of 2020

No. 2020-12


"(iv) Following the close of the polls, the county board shall record and publish the votes reflected on the ballots.

(5) [With respect to the challenged ballots, they] Ballots received whose applications have been challenged and ballots which have been challenged shall be placed unopened in a secure, safe and sealed container in the custody of the county board until it shall fix a time and place for a formal hearing of all such challenges, and notice shall be given where possible to all absentee electors and mail-in electors thus challenged and to every individual who made a challenge. The time for the hearing shall not be later than [five (5)] seven (7) days after the [date of the challenge] deadline for all challenges to be filed. On the day fixed for said hearing, the county board shall proceed without delay to hear said challenges, and, in hearing the testimony, the county board shall not be bound by the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. The testimony presented shall be stenographically recorded and made part of the record of the hearing.

(6) The decision of the county board in upholding or dismissing any challenge may be reviewed by the court of common pleas of the county upon a petition filed by any person aggrieved by the decision of the county board. The appeal shall be taken, within two (2) days after the decision was made, whether the decision was reduced to writing or not, to the court of common pleas setting forth the objections to the county board's decision and praying for an order reversing the decision.

(7) Pending the final determination of all appeals, the county board shall suspend any action in canvassing and computing all challenged ballots received under this subsection irrespective of whether or not appeal was taken from the county board's decision. Upon completion of the computation of the returns of the county, the votes cast upon the challenged official absentee ballots that have been finally determined to be valid shall be added to the other votes cast within the county.

2020 Act 12
Click to expand...
Fail
 
#24
#24
Vol Main said:
How old are you?
Click to expand...
Have you considered addressing the actual arguments being made rather than the arguments you think you can win? I honestly don't give two ***** about the election anymore, but just glancing over the thread, you're ignoring the arguments that conflict with what you want to believe and then just insulting people when you do respond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hUTch2002
#25
#25
volfanhill said:
Who are you to question that? You got your ass handed to you in here. My god.
Click to expand...

Who am I to ask? I am someone who wants to know what kind of people I am posting with, and I find it difficult to believe that some of the guys here are high school graduates. I get trashed for posting the PA statute. Then Volinwayne shows up with something titled Here Is The Evidence, which turns out to be a spread sheet. The video actually shows someone entering entire blocks of data. You've used a spread sheet, right? It is a program which allows the user to create titles, columns, and rows. They can be set with math formulas to do all sorts of things. If you have not questioned the authenticity of the so-called evidence, then you should do so, now. That is the first thing one does with so-called evidence, ask if it is authentic. What evidence is there for authenticity, besides none? There is a title that anyone using a spread sheet can create. So that is not evidence of authenticity. Then there is a video showing someone entering blocks of data. Am I supposed to think that person is an election official, entering official data? Why should I or anyone believe that? There are reasons for not believing that, but no reason for believing it. What I see is that someone created a video of a spread sheet with data which makes no sense. Are we supposed to think that a Democratic election official made the video and turned it over to someone to use against his own party? That makes no sense. Would it be more likely that a Republican fabricated the video and turned it over to someone to use against Democrats? That at least makes sense. But I see no reason to believe that the spread sheet is authentic or that the data entered on it is authentic. If it were authentic, then it could have been presented in court by the Trump Campaign lawyers. But they stated in court that they had no evidence of fraud and were not alleging fraud. So I want to know what kind of people believe in the authenticity of this so-called evidence which comes with zero evidence of its authenticity. What kind of person believes something like that?
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top