The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent ruling emphasizes the necessity of handwritten dates on mail-in ballots for the 2024 elections.
At a Glance
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has blocked the counting of mail-in ballots without a handwritten date for the 2024 election.
- This decision reverses a previous Commonwealth Court ruling that deemed the handwritten date requirement unconstitutional.
- The ruling followed an appeal by the Pennsylvania GOP.
- The decision is intended to maintain existing election laws and procedures.
Supreme Court Ruling on Mail-In Ballots
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that mail-in ballots missing a handwritten date will not be acceptable for the 2024 elections. This decision, which backs the Pennsylvania GOP’s appeal, reverses an earlier ruling by the Commonwealth Court that labeled the date requirement as unconstitutional. By enforcing the existing election laws, this measure seeks to ensure a consistent and lawful voting process.
The ruling has stirred debates in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state, about election integrity, and accessibility. While state Republicans support the decision, citing the importance of upholding procedural integrity, some state officials argue that counting undated ballots would simplify the process for election workers. The Department of State has even submitted a brief to support this perspective due to the potential stress on election personnel.
#ELB: Major Breaking News: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, with No Noted Dissents, Shuts Down Argument Under State Constitutional Law for Counting of Misdated/Undated But Timely Mail-In Ballots Before Election https://t.co/XkSQg5UEsc
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) November 1, 2024
Judicial Perspective and Reactions
Justice Kevin Dougherty criticized the Commonwealth Court for its attempt to alter election laws during an ongoing election. He remarked, “This Court will neither impose nor countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election.” His statement underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on not allowing modifications that could disrupt election processes.
“‘This Court will neither impose nor countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election.’ We said those carefully chosen words only weeks ago. Yet they apparently were not heard in the Commonwealth Court, the very court where the bulk of election litigation unfolds.” – Justice Kevin Dougherty
Justice Dougherty’s comments resonate with the Republican viewpoint, highlighting the divide between those who favor strict voting regulations and others advocating for a more lenient approach to facilitate voter access. This ruling is the second instance within a month where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stopped efforts to eliminate the handwritten date requirement, reinforcing the importance placed on adhering to statutory guidelines.
NEW: The Democratic National Committee asks the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to rule before Election Day that “undated” and misdated mail-in ballots (that arrive on time but in envelopes without current dates handwritten by voters) should be countedhttps://t.co/jCAu0Yhx6b
— Hansi Lo Wang (he/him) (@hansilowang) November 1, 2024
Impact on Future Elections
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Pennsylvania, as it may influence the national discourse on election fairness and procedure. The decision underscores the challenges of balancing secure voting practices with the need for widespread civic participation. As Pennsylvania remains a focal point in these discussions, the outcome could significantly affect both voter turnout and the overall electoral landscape in future elections.
“Today’s order, which I join, rights the ship. And it sends a loud message to all courts in this Commonwealth: in declaring we would not countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election, we said what we meant and meant what we said.” – Justice Kevin Dougherty
As the debate continues, stakeholders on both sides remain vigilant in their efforts to navigate the complexities of election laws to ensure that elections are conducted with both integrity and equitable access for voters.
