Penna Atty Gen’l has jurisdiction to call Sestak Grand Jury

Liberty Pundits ^ | June 15, 2010 | Clyde Middleton

[clyde_m]

In a reapportionment case, Erfer v. Com. (794 A.2d 325 (2002)), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania specifically held that the Commonwealth retained jurisdiction over all elections within the state, not just those for state office. Further, when discussing equal protection under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the court held, “The issue is whether the reapportionment plan has denied voters of a fair chance to influence the political process. This inquiry focuses not on the effects of a single election, but on the election process itself.” I find that instructive: What better argument can be made for denying a voter his or her ability “to influence the political process” than clearing the field of candidates?

[spintreebob]

Forget judicial activism. What specific PA law was violated by Sestak/Clinton/Rahm/Obama/etal? I don’t know PA law. I’m just asking. But our side would be hypocritical to ask the court to get involved without naming the specific PA law that was broken.

In contrast, it is reasonable to believe a federal law was broken.

[dirtboy]

I’m not sure where a PA AG would have jurisdiction over federal offenses such as violations of the Hatch Act.

[Red_Devil 232]

From the article:

Further, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution begins with “Elections shall be free and equal.” How far do we need to take “free and equal” when a 3d party seeks to manipulate the slate of candidates in apparent violation of federal law? If an act has the color of violating federal law, then it doesn’t seem to be a stretch to convene a Grand Jury to investigate whether it violates an on-point Pennsylvania Constitutional provision.

[anoldafvet]

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why Bill Clinton can offer Sestak a position in the Obama government when he is not part of that government.