(Capital-Star photo).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lower court’s decision finding the requirement for voters to write the date on mail-in ballots to have them counted unconstitutional.
In a two-page order, the state’s highest court said the lower Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a challenge of the dating provision by voters’ rights groups.
Commonwealth Court ruled in a 4-1 decision last month that election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny counties violated the Pennsylvania Constitution by refusing to count mail-in ballots with missing or incorrect dates. The majority concluded that the dating requirement violates the fair and equal elections clause of the constitution because it restricts the right to vote but does not serve a compelling governmental purpose.
Michael Whatley, chairman of the Republican National Committee which led the appeal, said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s decision Friday was a “huge win” that would protect mail ballot security and help voters cast their ballots with confidence.
“The Keystone State will be absolutely critical in this election, and the Supreme Court has decided a major victory for election integrity,” Whatley said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which represented the voting rights groups in court, said the procedural ruling by the state Supreme Court was only a setback for voters and that it would continue fighting for them.
“These eligible voters who got their ballots in on time should have their votes counted and voices heard,” senior supervising attorney Stephen Loney said. “The fundamental right to vote is among the most precious rights we enjoy as Pennsylvanians, and it should take more than a trivial paperwork error to take it away.”
Whether mail-in ballots returned without a date or an incorrect date should be counted has been a subject of litigation since 2020, when Pennsylvania first allowed voting by mail without an excuse for not going to the polls in person. The challenge led by the Black Political Empowerment Project was the first to address the constitutionality of the law.
Parties in the cases have disagreed on whether the dating requirement serves a purpose, as the timeliness of mail-in ballots is determined by when they are received in county elections offices and not the date on the envelope.
In the unsigned decision Friday, a majority of the seven-member Supreme Court said Commonwealth Court did not have the authority to review the issue, which would have had statewide implications for the Nov. 5 presidential election, without including election officials for all 67 Pennsylvania counties.
The inclusion of Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt as a party did not give Commonwealth Court jurisdiction, the Supreme Court said.
Three justices signed a dissenting statement that “a prompt and definitive ruling on the constitutional question presented in this appeal is of paramount public importance,” given its impact on the upcoming election. Justice David Wecht wrote that he would exercise the court’s “extraordinary jurisdiction” giving it authority to hear any case to render a decision before the election.
The order vacating the Commonwealth Court decision is in line with an argument by attorneys for the Republican National Committee. They asserted that because Schmidt’s guidance as Secretary of the Commonwealth was not binding on the county boards of elections, he was not an indispensable party to the lawsuit.
“The only relief Petitioners seek is an injunction against enforcement of the date requirement, but the Secretary has no authority, and plays no role, in such enforcement. Rather, that authority rests exclusively with the county boards,” the RNC’s lawyers argued.
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.