Scribd
Upload
385 views1 page

Election Review - CCLXXX

Dr. Robert B. Sklaroff discusses the unconstitutionality of Pennsylvania's Act 77 regarding mail-in voting and its implications for a potential revote due to ballot mixing. He emphasizes the constitutional requirement for voters to present themselves in person at their designated election district, which contrasts with the Acting Secretary's interpretation. The document also highlights partisan reactions to a Commonwealth Court decision that struck down aspects of mail-in voting, revealing divisions among political representatives and election officials.

Uploaded by

Anonymous Qn8AvWvx
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
385 views1 page

Election Review - CCLXXX

Dr. Robert B. Sklaroff discusses the unconstitutionality of Pennsylvania's Act 77 regarding mail-in voting and its implications for a potential revote due to ballot mixing. He emphasizes the constitutional requirement for voters to present themselves in person at their designated election district, which contrasts with the Acting Secretary's interpretation. The document also highlights partisan reactions to a Commonwealth Court decision that struck down aspects of mail-in voting, revealing divisions among political representatives and election officials.

Uploaded by

Anonymous Qn8AvWvx
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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 February 2, 2022 am – National Freedom Day

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


Re: PA “Forensic Audit” of 2020 POTUS Election [PART CCLXXX] – Act 77 Rejection Follow-Up
{}

Already analyzed is the Opinion showing why *Act 77 is Unconstitutional* and how it may
prompt judicial implementation of the only reasonable remedy, a revote (inasmuch as all
ballots have been admixed), because this ruling impacts ab initio of passage of Act 77.
Also recognized was the gravamen of the rhetorical conflict [Article VII, § 1] that entitles
the elector to “offer to vote” in the election district where “he or she shall have resided”
60 days before “the election.” This is the “place requirement” that compels the citizen to
“offer to vote” in his/her home precinct, elaborated upon by the PA Supreme Court:

To “offer to vote” by ballot, is to present oneself, with proper


qualifications, at the time and place appointed, and to make manual
delivery of the ballot to the officers appointed by law to receive it. The
ballot cannot be sent by mail or express, nor can it be cast outside of all
Pennsylvania election districts and certified into the county where the
voter has his domicil. We cannot be persuaded that the constitution ever
contemplated any such mode of voting, and we have abundant reason for
thinking that to permit it would break down all the safeguards of honest
suffrage. The constitution meant, rather, that the voter, in propria
persona, should offer his vote in an appropriate election district, in order
that his neighbours might be at hand to establish his right to vote if it were
challenged, or to challenge if it were doubtful. {Emphasis added.}

Yet, “The Acting Secretary [arguing on behalf of the Dems] doesn’t believe there’s a ‘place
requirement’ and, thus, she doesn’t view Article VII, § 14 [addressing excuse-mandated
absentee-balloting] to be an exception to any putative in-person voting mandate.”
Therefore, because the Constitution’s black-letter “presence” requirement can only be
amended, it cannot statutorily be expanded. [Ballot Security provides key-updates.]

Reactions to the Commonwealth Court decision that struck down the Mail-In Voting split
along party lines; support was provided by R’s [Lancaster County, Rep. Mike Kelly] and
opposed by Dems [Bucks County, Michael Cogbill] while elections officials were stumped
[Luzerne County, Lancaster County, Berks County]. Paul Muschick supported this decision
and provided historical context, for Corman played a key role in passing the mail voting
law and was initially proud of Act 77 before he flipped to criticizing after being challenged
by Trump. Remember that he remains focused solely on 2022 without addressing 2020.

You might also like