The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered that non-compliant mail-in and absentee ballots should not be counted, a decision impacting an extremely close U.S. Senate race.
Breitbart reported that in a significant ruling on Monday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court directed election boards in Bucks County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County to stop counting certain mail-in and absentee ballots.
This decision follows a lawsuit by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, challenging the validity of some ballots used in these areas.
The lawsuit centered around the U.S. Senate race between Sen. Bob Casey and Sen.-elect Dave McCormick, which showed such a narrow margin that a recount was triggered. The Associated Press had announced McCormick as the winner, although Casey did not concede, leading to further scrutiny of the voting process.
On November 12, Bucks County officials, Diane Ellis-Marseglia and Robert Harvie Jr., made a controversial decision to count 405 mail-in ballots despite them being misdated or undated.
This went against the legal advice provided to the Bucks County Board of Elections, which had expressed concerns based on prevailing law that such ballots should be discounted.
Two days later, Ellis-Marseglia and Harvie Jr. also moved to count provisional ballots that lacked required signatures, again breaching precedents set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Their actions prompted a swift legal challenge, arguing that election boards could not override state laws or previous judicial rulings concerning election practices.
In response to these flagrant violations of election law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled to stop the counting of these disputed ballots by invoking its King’s Bench Authority.
Justice Kevin Brobson emphasized that county boards of elections do not have the authority to declare state statutes unconstitutional, reaffirming their role to enforce, rather than challenge, the law.
This decision emerged amidst a tense backdrop, as McCormick maintained a 17,439 vote lead over Casey by Monday afternoon. The race's outcome could shift based on these counts, given the recount was triggered by a margin of less than half a percentage point.
The comments from Ellis-Marseglia highlight the board's defiance. She candidly stated about her decision to count the controversial ballots, "I just can’t vote to reject these ballots. I just can’t," and even acknowledged, "If I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention to it."
Her outspoken stance reflects a broader discussion about election law enforcement and the judiciary’s role in ensuring adherence to electoral statutes.
McCormick's counsel, Walter Zimolong, argued that the election board "violated the Election Code’s mandatory date requirement," a sentiment echoed in the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court's ruling. This legal intervention underscores the balance of rule-following and electoral integrity pivotal in determining fair election outcomes.
The court's decision is not merely a resolution to a legal battle but a strong reaffirmation of judicial oversight on how elections are conducted in Pennsylvania.
With potential national implications, the enforcement of this ruling could influence how other regions handle similar electoral challenges, emphasizing the vital role of judicial systems in upholding democratic processes.