Connect with us

International

Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules undated ballots won’t be counted in presidential election

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Pennsylvania’s highest court did not, however, agree with Republicans that provisional ballots should not be granted to people whose original mail ballots were too flawed to be counted.

Mail ballots submitted without a date will not be counted in Pennsylvania after all, the state’s highest court ruled Friday after a lower court declared they should be accepted.

The Epoch Times reports that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Republican National Committee and Pennsylvania Republican Party’s emergency request for a stay of a appellate court ruling two days earlier that the “free and equal elections clause” of the Pennsylvania Constitution required the Philadelphia Board of Elections to count a set of undated envelopes in a September special election for a state House seat.

While those envelopes did not directly concern the 2024 presidential election, if the ruling stood it would have had major ramifications for the race between Republican former President Donald Trump and Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris. Therefore, the justices made clear that the appellate decision “shall not be applied to the November 5, 2024 General Election.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s election decisions have not all been favorable to Republicans, however; it previously ruled that Pennsylvania voters will be allowed to cast provisional ballots in the event of a problem with the mail ballots they already cast, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene Friday.

“The actual provisional ballots contain no identifying information, only a vote,” GOP attorneys argued, to no avail. “Once ballots are separated from their outer envelopes, there is no way to retroactively figure out which ballots were illegally cast. In other words, once the egg is scrambled, it cannot be unscrambled.”

Pennsylvania holds 19 electoral votes (down one from prior elections due to redistricting), and is believed by many to be a crucial swing state that could be enough to decide the election’s outcome. The RealClearPolitics polling average for the state places Trump in the lead at just 0.4 percent, while RaceToTheWH’s average has Harris ahead by a scant 0.3 percent. Trump won the state in 2016; outgoing Democrat President Joe Biden claimed it in 2020.

Election integrity has long been an issue in American politics, but the controversy significantly intensified when the 2020 presidential election was marked by widespread election irregularities and numerous allegations that the election had been rigged for Joe Biden against Donald Trump, bolstered by the dramatic expansion of voting by mail in the wake of COVID-19.

Twenty-eight states relaxed their mail ballot rules in 2020, contributing to a 17-million vote increase from 2016. In addition to mail ballots generally being less secure than in-person votes, four of those states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – changed their rules without legislative consent. Those four alone comprised 56 of Biden’s electoral votes, more than enough to decide the victor.

At the same time, attempts to prove the election had been stolen were undermined by judges who dismissed some claims on process issues without ever considering their merits as well as flawed legal briefs by election challengers and dramatic examples of “smoking guns” that never panned out. Nevertheless, the controversy did lead to 14 states tightening their election rules over the following two years.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

‘TERMINATED’: Trump Ends Trade Talks With Canada Over Premier Ford’s Ronald Reagan Ad Against Tariffs

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Melissa O’Rourke

President Donald Trump announced late Thursday that trade negotiations with Canada “ARE HEREBY TERMINATED” after what he called “egregious behavior” tied to an Ontario TV ad that used former President Ronald Reagan’s voice to criticize tariffs.

The ad at the center of the feud was funded by Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government as part of a multimillion-dollar campaign running on major U.S. networks. The spot features Reagan warning that tariffs may appear patriotic but ultimately “hurt every American worker and consumer.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts. TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform late Thursday. “Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.”

Ford first posted the ad online on Oct. 16, writing in a caption, “Using every tool we have, we’ll never stop making the case against American tariffs on Canada. The way to prosperity is by working together.”

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute criticized the ad Thursday evening, saying it “misrepresents” Reagan’s 1987 radio address on free and fair trade. The foundation said Ontario did not request permission to use or alter the recording and that it is reviewing its legal options.

The president posted early Friday that Canada “cheated and got caught,” adding that Reagan actually “loved tariffs for our country.”

The ad splices audio from Reagan’s original remarks but includes his authentic statement: “When someone says, ‘let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports’, it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes, for a short while it works, but only for a short time.”

Reagan also noted at the end of his remarks that, in “certain select cases,” he had taken steps to stop unfair trade practices against American products and added that the president’s “options” in trade matters should not be restricted, which the ad did not include.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum, steel, automobiles and lumber, arguing they are vital to protecting U.S. manufacturing and national security.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in November over whether the administration overstepped its authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose reciprocal tariffs on dozens of nations, including Canada. Tariffs on commodities such as steel, aluminum and copper were implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and are not currently being challenged, as they align with longstanding precedent established by prior administrations.

Thursday’s move marks the second time this year Trump has canceled trade talks with Ottawa. In June, he briefly halted discussions after Canada imposed a digital services tax on American tech firms, though the Canadian government repealed the measure two days later.

Continue Reading

Health

Canada surrenders control of future health crises to WHO with ‘pandemic agreement’: report

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Canada’s top constitutional freedom group warned that government officials have “relinquished” control over “future health crises” by accepting the terms of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) revised International Health Regulations (IHR).

The warning came in a report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). The group said that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s acceptance earlier this year of the WHO’s globalist-minded “pandemic agreement” has “placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“By accepting the WHO’s revised IHR, the report explains, Canada has relinquished its own control over future health crises and instead has agreed to let the WHO determine when a ‘pandemic emergency’ exists and what Canada must do to respond to it, after which Canada must report back to the WHO,” the JCCF noted.

The report, titled Canada’s Surrender of Sovereignty: New WHO health regulations undermine Canadian democracy and Charter freedoms, was authored by Nigel Hannaford, a veteran journalist and researcher.

The WHO’s IHR amendments, which took effect on September 19, are “binding,” according to the organization. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canada’s government under Carney signed onto them in May.

Hannaford warned in his report that “(t)he WHO has no legal authority to impose orders on any country, nor does the WHO possess an army, police, or courts to enforce its orders or regulations.”

“Nevertheless, the WHO regards its own regulations as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally binding on 196 countries, including Canada” he wrote. 

Hannaford noted that “Surrendering Canada’s sovereignty” to the IHR bodies is itself “contrary to the constitutional principle of democratic accountability, also found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Among the most criticized parts of the agreement is the affirmation that “the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

While the agreement claims to uphold “the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters,” it also calls for a globally unified response in the event of a pandemic, stating plainly that “(t)he Parties shall promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic noted that “(b)y treating WHO edicts as binding, the federal government has effectively placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“Such directives, if enforced, would likely violate Canadians’ Charter rights and freedoms,” she added.

Hannaford said that “Canada’s health policies must be made in Canada.”

“No free and democratic nation should outsource its emergency powers to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva,” he wrote.

The report warned that new IHR regulations could mandate that signatory nations impose strict health-related policies, such as vaccine mandates or lockdowns, with no “public accountability.”

“Once the WHO declares a ‘Pandemic Emergency,’ member states are obligated to implement such emergency measures ‘without delay’ for a minimum of three months,” the JCCF said.

“Canada should instead withdraw from the revised IHR, following the example of countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, and the United States,” the JCCF continued. “The report recommends continued international cooperation without surrendering control over domestic health policies.”

Earlier this year, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis condemned the Liberal government for accepting the WHO’s IHR.

Continue Reading

Trending

X