Will Pennsylvania Voter Rights Shift with Mail-In Ballot Ruling?

Will Pennsylvania Voter Rights Shift with Mail-In Ballot Ruling?

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court faces a crucial decision on mail-in ballot error notifications, pitting voter rights against electoral integrity.

At a Glance

  • The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is evaluating whether counties must notify voters about mail-in ballot defects
  • Republican groups oppose mandatory notification procedures, citing potential voter confusion
  • The case could significantly impact Pennsylvania’s voting system and set precedents for future elections
  • Legal disputes over “undated ballots” and “naked ballots” remain unresolved as the election approaches
  • The court’s decision will balance safeguarding electoral processes with maintaining voter rights

Legal Battle Over Mail-In Ballot Procedures

As Pennsylvania voters begin casting ballots for the general election, legal disputes over mail-in ballot counting procedures continue to simmer. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is now tasked with deciding whether counties should be required to notify voters about defects in their mail-in ballots, potentially allowing for corrections. This case, brought by the Republican National Committee, challenges the authority of county boards to implement their own notice-and-cure procedures for defective ballots.

At the heart of the controversy are “undated ballots” and “naked ballots,” where voters fail to follow all rules for their votes to be counted. State law mandates that mail-in ballots be returned in two envelopes, with signatures and dates on the outer envelope. Thousands of ballots have been rejected for not having a proper date, despite the date not being used to verify receipt by the deadline.

Republican Opposition to Ballot Curing

The Republican plaintiffs argue that the current discretionary system for ballot curing violates the Pennsylvania Election Code. They claim that county boards lack the authority to enact their own curing policies without specific legislative approval. Furthermore, they assert that allowing voters to cast provisional ballots for defective mail-in ballots returned on time also violates the Election Code.

“The plaintiffs argue that the secretary’s recent instructions and automated email promising voters the right to cure their ballot has caused confusion among voters and imposes curing procedures onto all counties across the state, including those that have chosen not to offer the opportunity to cure a defective ballot.”

The GOP contends that inconsistent notice-and-cure policies across counties violate both state and federal constitutions. They seek a court order to prohibit county boards from implementing notice-and-cure procedures and to rescind the Secretary’s guidance on curing defective mail-in ballots.

Implications for Voter Rights

On the other side of the argument, voting rights groups advocate for protecting votes from disenfranchisement due to minor mistakes. They argue that rejecting ballots for technical errors such as missing dates or incorrect envelopes unfairly penalizes voters who made good-faith efforts to participate in the democratic process.

“This Court will neither impose nor countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election. See Crookston v. Johnson, 841 F.3d 396, 398 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Call it what you will — laches, the Purcell principle, or common sense — the idea is that courts will not disrupt imminent elections absent a powerful reason for doing so.

The court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for Pennsylvania’s voting system. It could potentially set a precedent for how mail-in ballots are handled in future elections, balancing the need for electoral integrity with the protection of voter rights. With less than six weeks until the election, the courts face tight timelines to provide guidance on these unresolved legal questions.

Efforts to Address Ballot Issues

In response to these ongoing challenges, state officials have redesigned envelopes to help voters comply with requirements. Additionally, a bipartisan advisory board recommended changing state laws to prevent disqualification for missing secrecy envelopes or dates. However, legislative gridlock has stalled these proposed changes.

As the legal battle continues, it’s worth noting that Democrats have historically cast more mail-in ballots than Republicans in Pennsylvania. This fact adds a layer of political complexity to the debate, as changes to mail-in voting procedures could potentially impact one party more than the other.

The outcome of this case will be closely watched by voters, election officials, and political parties alike. It will likely shape the landscape of mail-in voting in Pennsylvania for years to come, with potential ripple effects on national elections given the state’s crucial swing state status.