Memorandum Congressman Mark Amodei Nevada’s Second Congressional District

SUBJECT: Statement from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) DATE: 1/8/2021

Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator, Pat Toomey, issued the following illustrative statement on his opposition to the objection of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes:

                                    ************

“A fundamental, defining feature of a democratic republic is the right of the people to elect their own leaders. The effort by Sens. Hawley, Cruz, and others to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in swing states like Pennsylvania directly undermines this right. They fail to acknowledge that these allegations have been adjudicated in courtrooms across America and were found to be unsupported by evidence.

“President Trump’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, stated ‘we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election. I acknowledge that this past election, like all elections, had irregularities. But the evidence is overwhelming that Joe Biden won this election. His narrow victory in Pennsylvania is easily explained by the decline in suburban support for President Trump and the president’s slightly smaller victory margins in most rural counties. I voted for President Trump and endorsed him for re-election. But, I intend to vigorously defend our form of government by opposing this effort to disenfranchise millions of voters in my state and others.”

SEE MEMO BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION

Memorandum Congressman Mark Amodei Nevada’s Second Congressional District

SUBJECT: Pennsylvania Objection Background & Outcome DATE: 1/7/2021

Pennsylvania Voting Law Change – Act 77:

  • Sen. Hawley’s point of objection on Pennsylvania was on the validity of a 2019 state law called Act 77, which granted every Pennsylvania voter the option to request and cast a mail ballot, the option to vote by mail up to 50 days before an election, and to be placed on a list to permanently receive a ballot application by mail.
  • Rep. Mike Kelly filed a lawsuit calling for a judicial review of Act 77, arguing mail-in ballots (which more than 2.5 million Pennsylvania voters used in the presidential election) represent “unlawful” votes because the only way to expand mail-in voting in Pennsylvania is by amending the state constitution as opposed to passing an act by the legislature.
  • It is worth noting Act 77 was passed in 2019, when Republicans controlled the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
  • The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Rep. Kelly’s lawsuit on Nov. 28, citing how the mail-in-ballot law had been on the books for more than a year before the challenge was filed.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency request from Rep. Kelly to block Pennsylvania from certifying the election results on Dec. 8.Article VII of Pennsylvania State Constitution – Election Laws:General election day.The general election shall be held biennially on the Tuesday next following the first Monday of November in each even-numbered year, but the General Assembly may by law fix a different day, two- thirds of all the members of each House consenting thereto: Provided, That such election shall always be held in an even-numbered year.
    (Nov. 2, 1909, P.L.948, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5)Method of elections; secrecy in voting.All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved.
    (Nov. 5, 1901, P.L.882, J.R.2)Election and registration laws.All laws regulating the holding of elections by the citizens, or for the registration of electors, shall be uniform throughout the State, except that laws regulating and requiring the registration of electors may be enacted to apply to cities only, provided that such laws be uniform for cities of the same class, and except further, that the General Assembly shall by general law, permit the use of voting machines, or other mechanical devices for registering or recording and computing the vote, at all elections or primaries, in any county, city, borough, incorporated town or township of the Commonwealth, at the option of the electors of such county, city, borough, incorporated town or township, without being obliged to require the use of such voting machines or mechanical devices in any other county, city, borough, incorporated town or township, under such regulations with reference thereto as the General Assembly may from time to time prescribe. The General Assembly may, from time to time, prescribe

the number and duties of election officers in any political subdivision of the Commonwealth in which voting machines or other mechanical devices authorized by this section may be used.

Absentee voting.

(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside. (b) For purposes of this section, “municipality” means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.

Pennsylvania State Supreme Court Action:

• In an unsigned order, the seven-member state Supreme Court unanimously found that Rep. Kelly and the other petitioners had waited too long to challenge the state law that authorized mail-in ballots, Act 77 of 2019. The court stated:

“The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent.”

The justices ruled “to dismiss with prejudice Petitioners’ petition.”

Outcome of Objections in Joint Session of Congress:

  • The formal objection to Pennsylvania’s electoral votes was considered after the midnight hour on Wednesday.
  • Within 40 minutes of the formal objection, the Senate had returned to its Chamber, conducted zero debate, and completed its 92-7 vote. Under the rules, if both chambers of Congress do not support an objection – it is rejected.
  • Although the Senate’s vote made the House’s outcome irrelevant, the House proceeded with its two hours of debate well after midnight, as required under the rules, followed by a recorded vote of 282- 138 to uphold Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.