This brief is so interesting. It does not even address the main argument made in Rep. Kelly’s brief that the PA Legislature acted unconstitutionally in passing its absentee voting law. I’ve explained it’s a nonsense argument, but it’s the one being used by Kelly to argue for overturning the election.

The PA Republican Party does not say anything about this argument, or about the extraordinary and dangerous remedy that Rep. Kelly seeks. It instead picks up only the second argument, that the PA Supreme Court should not have rejected Kelly’s case on the basis of laches (unreasonable delay). The brief does not suggest a remedy, but a natural remedy for such a problem (if it presented a federal question, which it does not) would be a remand to consider the case on the merits, not throwing out the results of the election.

Why did the PA Republican Party do this? Probably because they felt they had to file something for political reasons, but they could not endorse the bananas theory which goes 180 degrees against the argument they make in another case pending before the Supreme Court (involving the 3 day extension of the deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots).