I am hoping with you.
I remember one of the early lawsuits that Rep. Mike Kelly submitted for Election Integrity. Here's a fearful smear article I found on it. I know the truth. So does Mastriano and Kelly. Am hopeful Mike Kelly reads this Wisconsin ruling.
Saylor suggested that Act 77 might indeed be unconstitutional. But the relief Kelly requested was “extreme and untenable.” There had been “too much good faith reliance, by the electorate” on Act 77.
Saylor meant that people would have voted in person if they had suspected that Act 77 might be unconstitutional and mail-in ballots might not be counted.
That is certainly true. I know that I would have voted in person.
I am hoping with you.
I remember one of the early lawsuits that Rep. Mike Kelly submitted for Election Integrity. Here's a fearful smear article I found on it. I know the truth. So does Mastriano and Kelly. Am hopeful Mike Kelly reads this Wisconsin ruling.
Saylor suggested that Act 77 might indeed be unconstitutional. But the relief Kelly requested was “extreme and untenable.” There had been “too much good faith reliance, by the electorate” on Act 77.
Saylor meant that people would have voted in person if they had suspected that Act 77 might be unconstitutional and mail-in ballots might not be counted.
That is certainly true. I know that I would have voted in person.
I am hoping with you.
I remember one of the early lawsuits that Rep. Mike Kelly submitted for Election Integrity. Here's a fearful smear article I found on it. I know the truth. So does Mastriano and Kelly. Am hopeful Mike Kelly reads this Wisconsin ruling.