Saturday, November 28, 2020

ORDER, CONCURRING STATEMENT & CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT THE HONORABLE MIKE KELLY, SEAN PARNELL, THOMAS A. FRANK, NANCY KIERZEK, DEREK MAGEE, ROBIN SAUTER, MICHAEL KINCAID, AND WANDA LOGAN v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HONORABLE THOMAS W. WOLF, KATHY BOOCKVAR APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, HONORABLE THOMAS W. WOLF, KATHY BOOCKVAR

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yS62HIdtj1JcvIh7lpVKO6GtGx_FYR_L/view?usp=sharing 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
MIDDLE DISTRICT 
THE HONORABLE MIKE KELLY, SEAN PARNELL, THOMAS A. FRANK, NANCY KIERZEK, DEREK MAGEE, ROBIN SAUTER, MICHAEL KINCAID, AND WANDA LOGAN 
v. 
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HONORABLE THOMAS W. WOLF, KATHY BOOCKVAR APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, HONORABLE THOMAS W. WOLF, KATHY BOOCKVAR 
No. 68 MAP 2020 
November 28, 2020 
ORDER 
PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2020, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 726,1 we GRANT the application for extraordinary jurisdiction filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Thomas W. Wolf, and Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (“Commonwealth”), VACATE the Commonwealth Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the Commonwealth from taking any further action regarding the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election, and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the petition for review filed by the Honorable Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, and Wanda Logan (“Petitioners”). All other outstanding motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

CONCURRING STATEMENT 
JUSTICE WECHT 
Filed: November 28, 2020

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 
CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR 
Filed: November 28, 2020 

 “…there is a component of Appellees’ original complaint, filed in the Commonwealth Court, which seeks declaratory relief and is unresolved by the above remedial assessment. Additionally, I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme.” 

Justice Mundy joins this Concurring and Dissenting Statement.

No comments: