Pennsylvania has already hinted that its arguments will include: 1) the filing doesn't address Act 77, a 2019 bill which allowed state-wide voting by mail, 2) the suit should be barred on the doctrine of [[laches]] (since in their opinion the suit should have been filed ''before'' the election), and 3) the case at hand wouldn't result in a "circuit split" (the possibility that two different Circuit Courts of Appeal may rule differently), one of the factors that the Court considers when deciding to hear a case.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election</ref> | Pennsylvania has already hinted that its arguments will include: 1) the filing doesn't address Act 77, a 2019 bill which allowed state-wide voting by mail, 2) the suit should be barred on the doctrine of [[laches]] (since in their opinion the suit should have been filed ''before'' the election), and 3) the case at hand wouldn't result in a "circuit split" (the possibility that two different Circuit Courts of Appeal may rule differently), one of the factors that the Court considers when deciding to hear a case.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election</ref> |