Supreme Court v. State Rights

Pennsylvania passed Act 77 in 2019; Act 77 established mail-voting and was not challenged until it was implemented, utilized by all parties, and aided Pennsylvania in reaching a decision. 4 A state legislature can decide to amend their voting procedures; the act was not challenged until after the election and the Pennsylvania Court could no longer reverse the voting procedures because votes had already been counted.

Even if this voting method proved to be inefficient or confusing, the Supreme Court cannot legislate laws that the justices think would be better; the Court’s role is to uphold the Constitution. The effort became officially futile when the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s and all pending cases regarding election results. The case was denied for the “lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution” and because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections” 5

Even if Texas’ argument was crafted perfectly, the Court’s asks: why is Texas concerned with the internal electors from casting their state’s vote. If they could prove that the selection of the electors was improper, they could possibly throw out their votes in the Electoral College.

Ultimately, the democratic process is protected heavily. This lawsuit could not throw out millions of people’s votes because of something as disparate as the appointment process of electors. The election votes were verified by each state in accordance with their respective process; these processes are voted and approved by the representatives of that state. State governments are much more productive and subjective than most people realize, and under a federal republic, they run more independent of the federal government than most people realize. Voting processes are presented, then voted on by all parties that represent the people of each state. The American democratic process is the most important part of maintaining a republic, and while questions should always be raised, the un-elected Supreme Court has always maintained an inability to over-legislate and overrule legislation that is voted on by the people.

The Supreme Court closed the case by denying Texas’s request to file its complaint against the four swing states, stating that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” However, in analyzing the decision, the Federalist concludes:

“The Supreme Court’s resolution thus “addressed” two separate questions, the first a narrow procedural question: Whether the U.S. Supreme Court must allow a state to file a complaint against another state.

Current Supreme Court precedent holds the high court retains discretion to decide whether to accept a lawsuit between two or more states. The Constitution provides the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction,” or the power to hear the case initially for such cases. The Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” for such lawsuits, meaning no other court has the power to hear a case when a state sues another state.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has held that it is not required to accept a complaint filed by one state against another. That is why, to initiate its lawsuit, Texas filed a “Motion for Leave,” or a motion asking permission to file its complaint. Procedurally, then, what the Supreme Court did on Friday was to deny Texas “leave” or permission to file the complaint against the four putative defendant states.” The Federalist

KPMG CHEATING SCANDAL

In accounting, auditors utilize their judgment to determine decisions that will best benefit the company while practicing transparency and honesty. Three former KPMG audit partners were recently charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for their negligent behavior. A statement was released by the U.S. SEC on May 18, 2020, stating that misconduct occurred that jeopardized the integrity of internal training exams. Internal training exams ensure that auditors remain up to date and are continuing CPA educational standards.

It was revealed that three former KPMG LLP audit partners were giving answers to the internal training exams and wrongfully acting while the investigation of potential cheating was taking place. Timothy Daly, Michael Bellach, and John Donovan are the three former KPMG audit partners who were questioned for potential cheating. Each was responsible for committing wrongful actions in regard to exams that test the knowledge of audit professionals. These exams identify whether or not audit professionals are equipped to be in audit practice by testing accounting and auditing concepts.

According to the facts of the SEC, Bellach sent Daly photos of a training exam in October of 2018, including questions and answers. Daly asked Ballach for the questions and answers to the required training exam according to the SEC. The misconduct occurred further once KPMG began investigating the potential wrongful acts of cheating. KPMG mandated that their employees comply with them as they addressed the possible cheating by sending each KPMG professional a notice. Once this notice reached KPMG employees, Daly deleted the texts that transpired between Bellach and himself. Additionally, Daly reported to KPMG investigators that he did not receive answers for the exams. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that Daly asked Bellach to delete the messages, and once Bellach was given the notice from KPMG, he deleted them.

Donovan was charged on similar grounds in regard to sharing exam answers to members of his team. Donovan was found to have obtained answers to training exams on multiple accounts between the months of April 2018 and September 2018. During these encounters, he informed his team members of answers three times. During the cheating investigation, Donovan inaccurately informed investigators that he had not partaken in the actions of sharing or receiving answers.

The SEC argues that the qualities of integrity, honesty, and responsibility are necessary within audit professionals due to the role they play within the financial reporting sequence. The SEC determined that Timothy Daly, Michael Bellach, and John Donovan violated a PCAOB Rule due to their lack of integrity in their profession. None of the three former KPMG LLP audit partners admitted or denied the charges against them; however, all three surrendered their ability to practice accounting for the SEC. This prohibits the three from participating in public companies' financial reporting and auditing practices. However, Timothy Daly, Michael Bellach, and John Donovan are entitled to be considered for reinstatement depending upon the number of years they are required to wait to reapply, between one and three years. Steven Peikin, Co-Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, stated that “These actions reflect our commitment to hold these gatekeepers responsible for breaches of their professional obligations.” In accounting, it is imperative that rules and regulations are being followed to protect the trust between individuals and the market. Without exams to ensure that professionals know accounting principles, transparency and trust within the market could be lost.