Timcast IRL · November 25, 2020 · 2h 0m

Timcast IRL #173 - Sean Parnell Joins To Discuss Lawsuit Over Mail Voting, This Could Change EVERYTHING

politicselectiongovernmentrepublicannews

Episode Recap

Timcast IRL episode 173 featured Sean Parnell, a Pennsylvania Senate candidate, joining Tim Pool and co-hosts to discuss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's mail-in voting expansion. The conversation centered on Act 77, legislation passed in 2019 that expanded no-excuse absentee voting in Pennsylvania. Parnell argued that Act 77 was implemented unconstitutionally because it bypassed the required constitutional amendment process, which would have required two consecutive legislative votes, public advertisement in newspapers for three months, and a voter referendum. He explained that the state legislature began the constitutional amendment process but stopped it, instead passing the law through regular legislative procedure signed by Governor Wolf. The discussion touched on concerns about the unprecedented scale of universal mail-in voting in the 2020 election, statistical irregularities, and the fact that most European countries have banned universal mail-in voting due to fraud concerns. Parnell emphasized that the lawsuit is not about disenfranchising the 2.5 million Pennsylvanians who cast mail-in ballots, but about challenging the legality of the process used to implement the voting changes. He addressed claims made by Governor Wolf, Attorney General Shapiro, and Conor Lamb that he wants to throw out mail-in ballots, clarifying that the focus is on the unconstitutional nature of the law itself, not the voters who participated in good faith under the existing system.

TL;DR

  • →Sean Parnell discussed his lawsuit challenging Act 77, Pennsylvania's 2019 mail-in voting expansion law, claiming it was implemented unconstitutionally by bypassing the required constitutional amendment process.
  • →The lawsuit argues that Pennsylvania's constitution clearly defines categories for absentee voting and that changing these rules requires a voter referendum, not just legislative approval.
  • →Parnell emphasized the lawsuit targets the legality of the law itself, not the 2.5 million voters who cast mail-in ballots, whom he says should not be disenfranchised.
  • →The discussion highlighted concerns about the unprecedented use of universal mail-in voting in the 2020 election and statistical irregularities observed across multiple states.
  • →Canada's paper ballot system with three scrutineers was contrasted with the fragmented voting systems across different U.S. states.
  • →Parnell addressed political opponents who mischaracterized his lawsuit as wanting to invalidate mail-in ballots, clarifying it focuses on constitutional process violations.

Key Moments

  • 0:00
    Opening
    Episode introduction with Tim Pool and co-hosts, noting it's no shave November and setting up the discussion about mail-in voting lawsuit
  • 30:00
    Act 77 Background
    Sean Parnell explains Act 77, Pennsylvania's 2019 law that expanded no-excuse absentee voting, and its connection to his campaign
  • 60:00
    Constitutional Violations
    Detailed discussion of how Act 77 bypassed the constitutional amendment process requiring two legislative votes and voter referendum
  • 90:00
    Addressing Misconceptions
    Parnell clarifies the lawsuit is not about disenfranchising mail-in voters but about challenging the unconstitutional law itself
  • 120:00
    Political Context
    Response to claims from Governor Wolf, AG Shapiro, and Conor Lamb about the lawsuit's intent regarding mail-in ballots

Notable Quotes

“I think that the election was kind of a nightmare, an organizational nightmare... there were abnormalities and statistical irregularities and anomalies in almost every state that it was used in.”

— Sean Parnell · initial assessment of the 2020 election

“Act 77 was implemented in an unconstitutional way. The Pennsylvania state constitution is very clear when it comes to absentee voting... to change the Pennsylvania constitution requires two votes in a state legislative session back to back.”

— Sean Parnell · core legal argument about unconstitutional implementation

“Governor Wolf and Attorney General Shapiro and Conor Lamb have all made the point, oh, Sean wants to throw out 2.5 million absentee ballots. That's not the point, okay? It's not about mail-in ballots, it's about the process by which the state legislature used to implement the law itself.”

— Sean Parnell · addressing political criticism of the lawsuit

“How can you change the rules of an election and strip away its integrity at the last minute... many states just declared universal mail-in ballots just mailed them out to everybody. That to me was crazy.”

— Tim Pool · questioning the legitimacy of last-minute election rule changes

“Is it the fault of the people who cast mail-in ballots thinking that the system was lawful? Is it their fault? Absolutely not. Should they have their ballot thrown out? Absolutely not. But those ballots, the law itself, Act 77 itself is clearly, in my opinion, unconstitutional.”

— Sean Parnell · clarifying the distinction between voters and the law

← All Episodes