PA judge McCullough: “Petitioners….likelihood to succeed on the merits”, Memorandum of Opinion Nov 27, “likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim”
“We discovered that these systems are subject to different types of unauthorized manipulation and potential fraud,” “There is a reason that Texas rejected it,”...Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems
“We’ve Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden”…Attorney Sidney Powell
Memorandum of Opinion by Judge McCullough
Filed November 27, 2020
Petitioners appear to have established alikelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law
which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania
Without the emergency relief ordered by this Court, there would be the
likelihood of irreparable harm to Petitioners. As to Petitioner Kelly, although it
appears that he gained the most votes in the election for the office he seeks, that
result has yet to be certified. Further, he may suffer irreparable harm prospectively should he seek election to public office in the future. If what may be an unconstitutional mail-in voting process remains extant, such mail-in ballots may make the difference as to whether he is successful or not.
As to Petitioners Parnell and Logan, mail-in ballots may have made the
difference as to whether they have won or lost their respective elections. Hence, their fates may well turn upon the constitutionality of Act 77. The other voters in this case assert their constitutional voting rights as citizens of Pennsylvania would be irreparably harmed.
Conversely, since the relief ordered by the Court is on an emergency
basis, Respondents face no irreparable harm. In any event, the matter of irreparable harm would have been assessed at the evidentiary hearing.
The relief ordered by this Court is also in the public interest. Any
claim that the voters of this Commonwealth are disenfranchised by this Court’s order are spurious. The Order at issue does nothing more than preserve the status quo pending further and immediate review. That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the
disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the
2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors. The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.5
For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the
emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing.”