The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reinstated the requirement for voters to date their mail ballot envelopes, potentially affecting thousands of votes in the upcoming November election.

According to Votebeat, the court's 4-3 decision on September 13, 2024, overturned a lower court ruling that had deemed the date requirement unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's ruling focused on jurisdictional issues rather than the merits of the case. The court determined that the Commonwealth Court lacked proper jurisdiction due to the failure to include all 67 county boards of elections as parties in the original lawsuit. This decision effectively voids the August 30 Commonwealth Court ruling that had found the date requirement to be in violation of voters' rights under the state constitution.

Legal Basis And Implications Of Ruling

The Supreme Court's decision hinged on a procedural technicality rather than addressing the constitutional arguments presented in the lower court. The majority opinion stated that the Commonwealth Court did not have the authority to review the matter because the original lawsuit failed to name all 67 county boards of elections as parties to the case.

This ruling means that Pennsylvania voters must now write a proper date on their mail ballot envelopes for their votes to be counted. The decision could potentially lead to the rejection of thousands of ballots in the November election, as has occurred in previous elections due to dating issues.

The court's focus on jurisdiction leaves open the possibility for future challenges to the date requirement based on constitutional grounds. However, for the immediate future, the requirement stands, and voters will need to comply to ensure their ballots are counted.

Political Reactions And Voter Impact

The decision has elicited mixed reactions from political figures and voting rights advocates. Governor Josh Shapiro expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that voters should not have their valid votes discounted due to inconsequential dating errors.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley, on the other hand, hailed the decision as a victory for election integrity. He viewed the ruling as a protection of common-sense mail ballot safeguards that would help voters cast their ballots with confidence.

Voting rights groups, including the ACLU of Pennsylvania, have vowed to continue their fight against the date requirement. They argue that eligible voters who submit their ballots on time should have their voices heard, regardless of minor paperwork errors.

Historical Context And Legal Challenges

The date requirement for mail ballots has been a contentious issue in Pennsylvania since the implementation of Act 77 in 2020, which expanded mail voting in the state. The law requires voters to sign and date the outer return envelope of their mail ballots and return them in a secrecy envelope for the votes to be counted.

Previous challenges to the date requirement have been made in federal courts, with judges delivering conflicting rulings on whether enforcing the requirement violated federal voting laws. The recent case marked the first direct challenge to the requirement under the state constitution.

Data from the April primary election shows that counties rejected approximately 8,500 ballots, or 1.22% of those returned, for issues related to signatures, dates, or the absence of a secrecy envelope. More than half of these rejections were specifically due to dating issues.

Dissenting Opinions And Future Prospects

Justice David Wecht, joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Christine Donohue, dissented from the majority opinion. Wecht called for the Supreme Court to address the constitutional claims directly and swiftly, given the approaching election.

The dissenting justices suggested that the court should exercise its "King's bench" authority to bypass the normal judicial process and have the parties submit briefs on the constitutional issue directly to the Supreme Court. This approach would have allowed for a more timely resolution of the underlying constitutional question.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania and other voting rights groups involved in the case have not yet decided on their next course of action. They may seek a direct ruling on the constitutional claim from the state Supreme Court or pursue other legal avenues to challenge the date requirement.

Challenges And Voter Education

While the current ruling restores the date requirement, challenges to this rule continue on multiple fronts. An NAACP challenge to the requirement under federal law could potentially be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and other cases challenging the requirement are also in progress.

The Pennsylvania Department of State, which was named as a defendant in the case but did not defend the date requirement, expressed disappointment with the decision. The department emphasized the need for a clear answer to this question for the sake of voters and county election administrators preparing for the upcoming presidential election.

Given the potential for ballot rejections due to dating issues, voter education efforts may become crucial in the lead-up to the November election. Ensuring that voters understand the importance of properly dating their mail ballot envelopes could help minimize the number of rejected ballots.

Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reinstated the requirement for voters to date their mail ballot envelopes, overturning a lower court ruling that had deemed it unconstitutional. The decision was based on jurisdictional issues rather than the merits of the case. This ruling could potentially lead to the rejection of thousands of ballots in the November election. While some view it as a victory for election integrity, others argue it could disenfranchise voters over minor errors. The debate over the date requirement is likely to continue, with the potential for further legal challenges.