Supreme Court Refuses to Block Pennsylvania’s Mail-In Ballot Decision Days Before Election
The Supreme Court recently chose not to interfere with a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that allows voters whose mail-in ballots are rejected to cast provisional votes. Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged the issue’s significance but maintained that reversing the ruling wouldn’t prevent the potential consequences for the current election. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s controversial decision was supported by a 4-3 vote and faced opposition from Republicans, who argued it altered election rules unfairly and at the last minute. They sought intervention from the Supreme Court, highlighting concerns over the potential implications for future elections, even if this change does not affect the current electoral results. The Democratic Party of Pennsylvania defended the ruling, asserting that it aligns with state law by enabling voters the opportunity to vote provisionally instead of facing disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court’s refusal to act underscores the complex dynamics of election-related legal disputes in Pennsylvania.
The Supreme Court declined Friday to block a lower court ruling finding Pennsylvania voters whose mail-in ballots are rejected over errors can cast a provisional vote.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the question is of “considerable importance” but noted that even siding with the Republican National Committee (RNC) at this time “could not prevent the consequences they fear” in a statement joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Oct. 23 to allow voters a second chance to cast a provisional ballot in-person when their mail ballots are rejected, a decision Republicans argued “dramatically” changed the rules and “departed from the plain terms of the Election Code.”
Republicans asked the Supreme Court to block the ruling on Monday, writing in their petition that this is “the second consecutive presidential election in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has changed important election rules at the last minute.”
“Even if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision does not change the outcome of any election, the question of whether the provisional ballots can be added to the vote total would remain a concrete dispute this Court can review,” the RNC argued in its emergency application. “Reviewing that court’s authority to do so — even after Election Day (when the pressure of an imminent election would be absent) — would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.’”
Alito wrote that the lower court’s decision “concerns just two votes in the long-completed Pennsylvania primary.”
“Staying that judgment would not impose any binding obligation on any of the Pennsylvania officials who are responsible for the conduct of this year’s election,” he wrote. “And because the only state election officials who are parties in this case are the members of the board of elections in one small county, we cannot order other election boards to sequester affected ballots.”
The Pennsylvania Democratic Party previously told the justices the RNC offered “no sound reason” to block the lower court decision.
“Put simply, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding that a voter whose mail ballot is not counted may exercise her statutory right to vote provisionally (rather than being disenfranchised altogether) was a straightforward and correct interpretation of Pennsylvania law,” the party wrote in its Wednesday filing.
“In an effort to cast the decision below as essentially lawless, the RNC quotes selectively from the Pennsylvania Election Code, abandoning any attempt to present accurately or fairly the actual interpretive problem the Pennsylvania Supreme Court faced,” attorneys for Butler County voters Faith Genser and Frank Matis argued in a court filing Wednesday.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...