Earlier on Saturday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a short decision ordering dismissal of the complaint filed by Congressman Mike Kelly and seven others challenging the legality of “no excuse” mail-in voting adopted by the Pennsylvania Legislature. The complaint alleged that such a system violated express provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which require in-person voting subject only to very limited exceptions for “absent electors” within four very narrow classes.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not address the merits of the allegations. It dismissed the complaint solely on the equitable doctrine of “laches,” which can be applied when one party to a dispute is seen by the Court as having “sat on its rights” with regard to a legal claim, and the opposing party would be unfairly injured to allow the party asserting its rights to prevail after having failed to act when it was first aware of the claim. //

But here are a couple questions to consider when taking into account of the language used by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

The defendants and allegedly bad actors in the allegations of the Complaint are Pennsylvania state officials. How are they injured here?

What does the application of the “doctrine of laches” do to vindicate their interest?

What interests do they have in operating a facially invalid election scheme?

What interests do the voters of Pennsylvania have in maintaining a facially unconstitutional voting scheme?

And, as the Chief Justice of the Court made clear in his partial concurrence and partial dissent:

“laches and prejudice can never be permitted to amend the Constitution.” Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38, 47, 550 A.2d 184, 188 (1988) //

DaveM_2
2 hours ago edited
Another case of circular reasoning. Prior to this election you could not sue because you could not show harm. Today after you have been harmed you cant sue because you didn't previously sue.