Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Election Review - DXXXV

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous Qn8AvWvx
    74 views2 pages
    Act 77 CAN be Trashed

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Act 77 CAN be Trashed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    74 views2 pages

    Election Review - DXXXV

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous Qn8AvWvx
    Act 77 CAN be Trashed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

    Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900


    Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C  Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
    8001 Roosevelt Boulevard  rsklaroff@gmail.com
    Philadelphia, PA 19152-3041 May 27, 2022 – Kissinger/Humphrey BDs

    To: Distribution [Politicians, Media, Potentially-Interested Persons]


    Re: PA “Forensic Audit” of 2020 POTUS Election [PART DXXXV] – Act 77 CAN be Trashed
    {}

    A more formalistic memo was changed into this *op-ed* c/o the Delaware Valley Journal.
    {You’re provided the original text, prior to its being edited for publication, so that the
    additional/supportive hyperlinks can be vetted; nothing was added to the submission.}
    Disclaimer: “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one via these memos”; thus, critique invited!

    Act 77 CAN And Should be Trashed


    By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

    Election Integrity activists have led the attack on Pennsylvania’s current voting law and,
    specifically, they want its validation of no-excuse absentee ballots to be eliminated.

    Regardless as to whether McCormick’s electoral challenge will salvage his political effort
    after a recount, his lawsuit must be supported, for it provides a shortcut to kill Act 77.

    In January, the Commonwealth Court ruled Act 77 was unconstitutional, reasoning that I
    vigorously supported [here & here & here].

    Yet, this issue is stuck in the PA Supreme Court, probably due to “politics” because its
    Democrat-majority can’t discern a cognizable method to refute these analyses.

    Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it’s “immaterial” that the outside
    envelope of an absentee ballot be dated; its timely return could easily be validated by
    noting the postmark and confirming the date when it had been received by the county
    election officials.

    This mandate is in Act 77: “Section 1306. Voting by Absentee Electors.--(a) … The elector
    shall then fill out, DATE and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.”

    Pivotal is its non-severability clause: “Section 11. … If any provision of this act or its
    application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or
    applications of this act are VOID.”
    Litigating this via the Federal Court precludes the ability of the PA Supremes to be dilatory
    when faced with an obvious glitch in the law; it’s doubtful that the SCOTUS would
    intervene when the lower court had already ruled.

    This is black-letter language that seemingly provides no legal wiggle-room.

    Indeed, dumping Act 77 “ab initio” [from the date when it was signed] would invalidate
    non-excuse absentee voting.

    Some people enjoy the convenience of mail-in voting, but they ignore the traditional
    reasons for functioning as citizens and the unnecessary introduction of fraud in the
    absence of voter/photo-ID.

    Therefore, this has been the cause célèbre of electoral reform advocates, for it carries
    profound implications.

    Dr. Robert Sklaroff is a Philadelphia medical oncologist/hematologist, and lifelong


    medical/political activist.
    - 30 -

    Initial critique from lawyers yesterday didn’t undermine the legal logic therein, and my
    in-house brilliant-critic could only suggest severability could be subjective [as famously
    occurred with ObamaCare]. Throughout, recognize the key import of my review is the
    potential impact on 2020 [which has animated these memos during the past year].

    Note a critical analysis [Mail Ballot Ruling Could Affect 2022 Primary Election Results] that
    recognizes the 3rd Circuit cited federal voting rights law when rendering its opinion;
    therefore, it would be more difficult for the PA Supremes to act unilaterally in opposition.

    I had cited the Lehigh Valley case in an earlier memo [*Battles in PA Counties*, page 2,
    ‘graph 2] noting the initial focus of any intervention—regardless of rationale—was the
    “undated” issue. A euphemism undermines counting “under-dated” ballots [or any that
    weren’t cured, notwithstanding “equal protection”]: “You can't be a little bit pregnant.”
    This evolving litigation carries a potential ripple effect that could become a tsunami.

    It is anticipated that the courts will arrive at a consensus endpoint within days, unlike
    how the PA Supremes have delayed addressing the Commonwealth Court case that it was
    provided four months ago. I had a personal experience two decades ago with litigation
    [co-filed with the Philly County Medical Society and the PA Society of Internal Medicine]
    attempting to block the consolidation of Pennsylvania Blue Shield and Blue Cross of
    Western Pennsylvania, when the PA Supremes sat on the case for a year; curiously, it was
    rejected a day before Independence Blue Cross announced it wasn’t going to seek to
    consolidate/merge with Highmark [the entity I’d attacked] to create a statewide “Blue.”
    {Quoting Steve Bannon, “There are NO conspiracies, but there are NO coincidences.”}

    You might also like