In early September, a 4-1 panel of the state Commonwealth Court ruled that undated mail-in ballot envelopes (MIBs) must be counted so long as they are received by election day. In a 91-page opinion, Judge Ellen Ceisler concluded that the Election Code requirement that the envelope be dated is unconstitutional. But hold on, said the state supremes in a per curiam order that was issued on September 13. Since the plaintiffs only bothered to name two of the 67 county boards of election, and they obviously are directly impacted by any ruling about how MIBs are counted, there never was subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, Judge Ceisler wasted 91 pages of very good paper. But the Court of Final Error was nice about it. Instead of reversing her, they VACATED her order, figuring she'd get the message.
She didn't.
In response to the High Court's Order, Judge Ceisler scheduled and actually conducted a status conference to encourage the Plaintiffs to quickly amend their lawsuit to include all counties. That way she could reinstate her September Order just in time for the Presidential election. I am truly amazed that a jurist would take it upon herself to act more like a litigator than an arbiter. So were evil Republicans, who cried foul in a motion filed with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The state high court noticed.
In yet another per curiam order issued late yesterday, a yellow flag was thrown at the Commonwealth Court for its attempted end run. The Commonwealth Court has been ordered to dismiss the case.
On the merits, I happen to agree with Judge Cesiler. But she should have realized you can't issue an order binding all 67 counties when they are not named Defendants.
6 comments:
Judge Definition - A person who puts on a robe and thinks it makes them god like.
It is called hubris. A very bad trait for a jurist. No judge should be dictating a course of action to justify the decision they wish to make. I have no issue with a Judge who is willing to make a tough decision, but in our system, if that decision is found by a higher court to be erroneous, respect it, do not fight it. That is not her role.
How can not following the clear rules (you know, date your ballot)be something to agree with, Bernie? Ah, I see. This judge is Democrat and will do anything, even changing the rules, to win. Congratulations PA Supreme Court!
As the dissenting Justices argued, the Supreme Court had the authority to assume jurisdiction where none existed and should have ruled one way or the other on a matter of extreme importance. This authority is given by the Pennsylvania Constitution (PA. CONST. art. V, § 10;), and the Legislature (42 Pa.C.S. § 502).
Here's an explanation from the Law 360 website: "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the power to consider any case pending in a lower court and even some matters not pending in the courts when it sees the need to address an issue of “immediate public importance.” When it does so, the Court exercises its “King’s Bench power” which gives the Supreme Court the authority to supervise and administer the judiciary. The Supreme Court exercises these powers only on rare occasions and has exercised them to take jurisdiction of cases such as those involving election disputes, among others."
My personal view is the Supreme Court manufactured a reason to drop this hot potato for political reasons. For example, while the failure of plaintiffs to sue all 67 counties may raise eyebrows, they did in fact sue the Secretary of the Commonwealth, which should have conferred statewide jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary -- who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the electoral process - was not a necessary party and thus his inclusion didn't confer jurisdiction.
Even clear rules can be unconstitutional if they violate the constitution. For instance, a rule that said "all blue-eyed men must only drive on Tuesdays" would be clear, but unconstitutional in that it would violate the constitutional rights of the blue-eyed man. See how that works?
She is a democrat so what do you expect? Interesting her biggest donor is called Ceisler Media and Issue Advocacy.
https://www.transparencyusa.org/pa/candidate/ellen-ceisler/contributors?cycle=2018-election-cycle
Post a Comment