Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P., Act 77 Rejection Follow-Up
February 2, 2022  Philadelphia, PA

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.