Election integrity advocates scored a big win in Pennsylvania after the Supreme Court ruled on September 13th that mail-in ballots must be dated by voters to be accepted, overturning a previous court's decision.
VoteBeat reported that the recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court demands proper dating of mail-in ballots, a prerequisite that could render thousands of votes void due to dating errors.
Initially, on August 30th, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court found the requirement for voters to date their mail ballots unconstitutional.
This decision was challenged, leading to a critical review by the state’s highest court. The reversal was predicated not on the constitutional arguments but rather on procedural grounds, questioning the jurisdiction of the initial review.
The essence of the jurisdiction issue lay in the initial lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center representing various voting rights groups. They argued the dating requirement was trivial and should not discard otherwise valid votes.
However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the lower court’s decision lacked jurisdiction as it failed to include all 67 county boards of elections, which are integral to election administration in the state.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was closely contested, ending in a 4-3 vote. Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, representing the state’s election oversight, was deemed an inadequate substitution for the collective inclusion of all county boards, leading to the annulment of the lower court’s ruling.
This technicality brought the case to a different focal point, emphasizing procedural adherence over constitutional debate.
In response to the decision, Governor Josh Shapiro expressed his disappointment, stating, “It should be clear that voters who make an inconsequential dating error deserve to still have their valid vote counted.” His sentiment reflects a broader concern about voter disenfranchisement over minor clerical errors.
Contrastingly, RNC Chairman Michael Whatley welcomed the decision, viewing it as an enhancement to election integrity that ensures voters adhere to required ballot safeguards.
His statement, “This is a huge win to protect the vote in Pennsylvania that will protect commonsense mail ballot safeguards and help voters cast their ballots with confidence,” underscores a fundamental divide in perspectives on election procedures.
The dissent among the justices was palpable, with Justice David Wecht, joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Christine Donohue, advocating for a direct resolution to the constitutional claims raised. Their dissent highlights ongoing concerns regarding how such procedural requirements align with the larger constitutional vision of voter rights.
This debate is not isolated to Pennsylvania. Nationwide, federal judges have grappled with the legality of imposing similar dating requirements, questioning their compatibility with federal voting laws. This points to a larger electoral narrative playing out across the United States, as states navigate the complex interplay of facilitating easy voter access while ensuring the security and legality of the voting process.
Steve Loney from the ACLU underscored the commitment to continue fighting for the rights of voters affected by this ruling. His statement, “These eligible voters who got their ballots in on time should have their votes counted and voices heard,” calls attention to the human impact behind the procedural debates.
As the legal battles unfold, the fundamental issues at stake extend far beyond procedural technicalities, touching on the very core of democratic participation.
With the presidential election on the horizon, the urgency for clear, fair, and implementable voting laws has never been more critical.
Election officials and voters alike are seeking clarity and stability in election protocols.
The Pennsylvania Department of State has articulated a desire for a swift resolution to these legal challenges, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines as counties prepare for upcoming elections. Their statement points to a need for guidance that balances the procedural requirements with the fundamental right to vote.
The ongoing legal discourse in Pennsylvania reflects a microcosm of the national debate on how to best balance election security with ensuring broad voter participation. As this case demonstrates, even small details like a date on a ballot envelope can have profound implications for the democratic process.