[dead]
And yet no one challenged the law until after the third election it had taken effect. Until after the results had come out. There's a doctrine called laches: you have to complain about things that wrong you when you find about them, and if you wait too long, you don't get to complain anymore.
Furthermore, as for election challenges go, you're not going to invalidate any votes that had already been validly cast under the existing interpretation of law, even if the interpretation is incorrect per court rulings. For example, when there were last-minute challenges to absentee ballot procedures, any absentee ballots cast before the decision came out under the old procedures would still be valid, even if they didn't meet the new procedural requirements.
So anyone thinking that courts would invalidate election results via after-the-fact court challenges is either ignorant, lying to themselves, or is stuck somewhere in la-la land.
On your second point: If a state holds an election contrary to their constitution and it's proven that it was contrary to their constitution, the votes wouldn't be constitutional. In other words they're illegal. So wouldn't it be sensible to hear calls to count only the legal votes?
There are many, many more irregularities that are too numerous to list but here are a few:
https://rumble.com/vhj5at-2020-election-irregularities-compi...
No. Those who voted using improper procedures had reasonable basis to believe that the procedures they used would have been proper. If they had known those procedures where improper at the time they availed themselves of them, they very well could have used proper procedures instead. After the election and the votes are counted, it is absolutely too late to cure any defects. Why should those people be penalized for actions that they have done through no fault of their own?
Traditionally, older Pennsylvanians support conservative candidates. And with the state's population skewing older, Republicans in the state realized the thing that could dampen votes for their candidates was that the state's ancient, overly-tight restraints on what constituted a valid excuse for an absentee ballot meant that older Pennsylvanians who were shut in in nursing homes and couldn't find transportation to the polls increasingly wouldn't be able to vote for their candidates.
It was one of those bipartisan pieces of legislation that passed because Democrats believed the more of the population voted, the more would vote for them, and Republicans believed supporting the elderly's right to vote meant more Republican votes. In the end, they were probably both right.
Point is, the state Supreme Court rightfully saw through it when the people who'd supported the law in the first place called foul, but only in the third election the law was used, when their candidate wasn't the one who won.
... well, their candidate for President. An awful lot of their down-ticket candidates won. Which would be a weird thing to happen if the election had been rigged, wouldn't it?
No one of reasonable mind is questioning whether ballots that were automatically sent to people - without explicit laws instructing counties to do that - were somehow sent back en masse by fake or dead people, or adding additional ballots onto it.
Yeah a lot of places like that get very high turnout. Especially older people in general.
One reason is from what the right calls 'ballot harvesting' which is usually legal. where someone goes into a high voter concentration area and goes door to doo, helps to vote, then turns the ballots in on behalf of the voter.
Both sides do this.
While there are a few instances of bad actors filling in ballots for people (almost always Republican..) that would have to be proven. And there isn't any evidence in those instances. Even if it did happen for a few hundred votes - which I personally doubt - it would not have changed the outcome of the election, likely not even at the very small local level.