In a pivotal legal decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against the counting of undated and misdated mail ballots in key counties.
The Hill reported that the court's ruling aligns with the legislative requirements for mail ballots as Pennsylvania's Senate race nears a recount with a narrow margin.
The controversy stemmed from actions in Philadelphia, Montgomery, and Bucks counties, where election boards counted undated and misdated mail ballots. This led to criticism from the state's highest court, which had previously decreed such ballots invalid.
Justice David Wecht, joined by Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, reiterated the necessity for local election boards to comply with existing laws. Their decision emphasized the importance of following judicial directions to maintain election integrity.
The ruling affects the imminent Senate race, where Republican David McCormick holds a slight lead over Democrat incumbent Bob Casey. With McCormick ahead by fewer than 20,000 votes, the state braces for an automatic recount.
Despite the ongoing electoral tension, McCormick has been preliminarily declared the winner by Decision Desk HQ, though Casey has yet to concede, highlighting the race's high stakes and close monitoring.
In a definitive 4-3 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court utilized its King’s Bench authority to intervene directly in the election process.
This special jurisdiction allowed them to order that these improperly dated ballots be excluded from the November 5, 2024, election tally.
This directive was specifically aimed at ensuring that Bucks, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties adhere to the established rules. The involvement of Centre County, which also faced accusations from Republicans about counting invalid ballots, marked another focal point of legal scrutiny.
Three justices, in a supporting opinion, censured local election officials who attempted to count these ballots against legal standards. They stressed that local officials are not empowered to judge the constitutionality of statutes, a prerogative belonging solely to the judiciary.
Justice Kevin Brobson, supported by Justices Wecht and Mundy, pointed out the overreach of local election officials who disregard the statutes set by the Election Code. Their firm stance highlights the judiciary's role in interpreting legal frameworks.
On the other hand, dissenting justices led by Justice Christine Donohue argued for the competence of lower courts to handle such disputes without the need for Supreme Court intervention. Their dissent underscores a divide within the court regarding the handling and timing of this electoral issue.
The high court did not settle the constitutional debate over the requirement for voters to date mail ballots, stating that the election's proximity made any changes to this rule impractical.
Voting rights groups and Democratic leaders have contended that the requirement for dating mail ballots is redundant, given that ballots are already timestamped upon receipt.
They argue that this requirement may even be unconstitutional under state law.
Michael Whatley, chair of the Republican National Committee, expressed his resolve following the ruling, emphasizing that election officials in the affected counties must now unequivocally reject illegal ballots. His statement, "No more excuses," encapsulates the Republican response to the court's decision.
The ruling and its implications continue to be a focal point for both parties as Pennsylvania approaches a critical electoral juncture, with both local and national ramifications.
