In a pivotal decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the inclusion of undated and misdated mail-in ballots in the election tally was rejected, directly opposing the stance of Democratic Senator Bob Casey.
The Daily Caller reported that Casey's unsuccessful push to count disputed ballots was halted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a recent ruling amid a recount from a tightly contested Senate race.
Amidst an ongoing automated recount due to narrow vote margins, Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, who recently faced a loss in his Senate race, voiced strong support for including undated or misdated mail-in ballots in the vote count.
Casey refused to concede, highlighting the contentious nature of this election cycle. On the day of the Supreme Court's decision, he published an opinion piece advocating for the acceptance of these ballots, arguing that their exclusion would disenfranchise thousands of voters.
The same afternoon, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a contrasting verdict. Their definitive ruling prohibited the counting of undated and misdated mail-in and absentee ballots, aligning with past decisions on election guideline adherence.
Previously, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court had ruled twice within the year that discarding these ballots violated the state constitution.
This context set an expectation that potentially, Casey's opinion could sway some judicial decision-making. However, the higher court's swift verdict underscored the finality of his position.
The Associated Press had already called the Senate race for McCormick, with a slim lead of approximately 17,400 votes from over 6.5 million cast, triggering the automatic recount. Various county officials in Bucks, Montgomery, Philadelphia, and Centre counties attempted to count the ballots in question, despite existing legal precedents against such actions.
In Bucks County, Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia notably disregarded the legal precedent established in earlier rulings and voted to count the problematic ballots. Her defiance attracted scrutiny and highlighted the fragmented enforcement of election laws across the state.
Senator Casey argued in his public statements and written opinion that rejecting undated or misdated ballots did not serve the intent of fraud prevention and instead disenfranchised eligible voters.
"Throwing out undated or misdated ballots is akin to disenfranchising thousands of voters," he stated, emphasizing the constitutional debate surrounding voter eligibility and bureaucratic requirements.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, reiterated in its ruling that the need for dated ballots was a non-negotiable aspect of the state's election code. Their statement made clear: "Mail-in and absentee ballots that fail to comply with the Pennsylvania Election Code SHALL NOT BE COUNTED for the election held on Nov. 5, 2024."
The Republican National Committee (RNC), which had pursued legal avenues to ensure these ballots were not counted, voiced satisfaction over the ruling.
RNC Chairman Michael Whatley expressed relief and resolve, stating, "Following our latest lawsuit, today the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled yet again that undated ballots CAN NOT BE COUNTED. No more excuses. Election officials in Bucks, Montgomery, Philadelphia, and other counties have absolutely no choice but to reject illegal ballots. We will hold them to it."
The discourse surrounding this decision amplifies inherent tensions in the United States electoral process, particularly limitations imposed by technical errors on mail-in ballots versus the foundational right to vote. The contentious backdrop of a close Senate race further complicates the social and legal narratives.
The implications of these rulings and the election's eventual outcomes may have longer-term impacts on how elections are conducted, especially regarding mail-in voting norms.
Critics and supporters of the decision alike foresee continued debates and potential legislative responses aimed at refining or redefining the requirements for valid mail-in ballots in future elections.
Despite Senator Bob Casey's advocacy for counting updated and misdated ballots based on the principle of voter eligibility, the high court has set a precedent that reinforces strict adherence to existing election laws, leading to a potential change in how future ballots are processed and considered in electoral tallies.