Commonwealth Court Upholds Act 77, Again
Court rejects GOP request to invalidate law, appeal expected
June 27, 2023
No Comments
Court rejects GOP request to invalidate law, appeal expected
Dan McCaffery (D) and Carolyn Carluccio (R) are vying to replace the late Max Baer on the bench
PA Supreme Court hears oral arguments on governor’s powers
State did not fail to comply to federal or state law governing list maintenance
There are four candidates for two spots on the general election ballot in November.
Scranton native is fourth-generation public servant
Individuals will be able to locate MDC office locations and pinpoint other key criminal justice stakeholder locations
Court opts to wait until further General Assembly action is taken before considering
Northwest PA legislator signs to back ruling that would overturn the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit filed by numerous Republican organizations challenging the authority of the county boards of elections to develop and
Pennsylvania’s much-maligned mail ballot law known as Act 77 has withstood its latest legal challenge.
In a lawsuit filed in 2022, 14 current and former Republican state lawmakers asked that the state’s Commonwealth Court to invalidate the law based upon the nonseverability provision of the Act. The petitioners claimed that Ritter v. Migliori and/or Champman v. Berks County Board of Elections triggered the provision that says it is “void” if any of its requirements are struck down in court.
Their argument was that those court rulings refused to enforce the requirement that a voter write a date on the outer envelope of their mail-in ballot if the ballot is to be counted.
Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer ruled in dismissing the suit that the “interpretations did not invalidate the Dating Provisions, as neither opinion struck the Dating Provisions from the Election Code or held that electors cannot or should not handwrite a date on the declaration in accordance with those provisions. Even under these interpretations, the Dating Provisions remain part of the Election Code and continue to instruct electors to date the declaration on the return mailing envelope, which, as history has shown, a majority of electors will do.”
Judge Patricia McCullough wrote in her concurring opinion that “the right of suffrage is a fundamental constitutional right as recognized by the Election Code. The citizens of Pennsylvania are entitled to elections that are fair and orderly and to be fully informed of the electoral process. In light of current precedent, I am constrained to concur with the Majority in the regards noted. The remaining state of flux confronting Pennsylvania citizens requires immediate establishment of clear direction in conformance with constitutional standards.”
In a post-ruling interview, Greg Teufel, the lawyer for the 14 Republican lawmakers, said he expects to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania’s much-maligned mail ballot law known as Act 77 has withstood its latest legal challenge.
In a lawsuit filed in 2022, 14 current and former Republican state lawmakers asked that the state’s Commonwealth Court to invalidate the law based upon the nonseverability provision of the Act. The petitioners claimed that Ritter v. Migliori and/or Champman v. Berks County Board of Elections triggered the provision that says it is “void” if any of its requirements are struck down in court.
Their argument was that those court rulings refused to enforce the requirement that a voter write a date on the outer envelope of their mail-in ballot if the ballot is to be counted.
Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer ruled in dismissing the suit that the “interpretations did not invalidate the Dating Provisions, as neither opinion struck the Dating Provisions from the Election Code or held that electors cannot or should not handwrite a date on the declaration in accordance with those provisions. Even under these interpretations, the Dating Provisions remain part of the Election Code and continue to instruct electors to date the declaration on the return mailing envelope, which, as history has shown, a majority of electors will do.”
Judge Patricia McCullough wrote in her concurring opinion that “the right of suffrage is a fundamental constitutional right as recognized by the Election Code. The citizens of Pennsylvania are entitled to elections that are fair and orderly and to be fully informed of the electoral process. In light of current precedent, I am constrained to concur with the Majority in the regards noted. The remaining state of flux confronting Pennsylvania citizens requires immediate establishment of clear direction in conformance with constitutional standards.”
In a post-ruling interview, Greg Teufel, the lawyer for the 14 Republican lawmakers, said he expects to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania’s much-maligned mail ballot law known as Act 77 has withstood its latest legal challenge.
In a lawsuit filed in 2022, 14 current and former Republican state lawmakers asked that the state’s Commonwealth Court to invalidate the law based upon the nonseverability provision of the Act. The petitioners claimed that Ritter v. Migliori and/or Champman v. Berks County Board of Elections triggered the provision that says it is “void” if any of its requirements are struck down in court.
Their argument was that those court rulings refused to enforce the requirement that a voter write a date on the outer envelope of their mail-in ballot if the ballot is to be counted.
Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer ruled in dismissing the suit that the “interpretations did not invalidate the Dating Provisions, as neither opinion struck the Dating Provisions from the Election Code or held that electors cannot or should not handwrite a date on the declaration in accordance with those provisions. Even under these interpretations, the Dating Provisions remain part of the Election Code and continue to instruct electors to date the declaration on the return mailing envelope, which, as history has shown, a majority of electors will do.”
Judge Patricia McCullough wrote in her concurring opinion that “the right of suffrage is a fundamental constitutional right as recognized by the Election Code. The citizens of Pennsylvania are entitled to elections that are fair and orderly and to be fully informed of the electoral process. In light of current precedent, I am constrained to concur with the Majority in the regards noted. The remaining state of flux confronting Pennsylvania citizens requires immediate establishment of clear direction in conformance with constitutional standards.”
In a post-ruling interview, Greg Teufel, the lawyer for the 14 Republican lawmakers, said he expects to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania’s much-maligned mail ballot law known as Act 77 has withstood its latest legal challenge.
In a lawsuit filed in 2022, 14 current and former Republican state lawmakers asked that the state’s Commonwealth Court to invalidate the law based upon the nonseverability provision of the Act. The petitioners claimed that Ritter v. Migliori and/or Champman v. Berks County Board of Elections triggered the provision that says it is “void” if any of its requirements are struck down in court.
Their argument was that those court rulings refused to enforce the requirement that a voter write a date on the outer envelope of their mail-in ballot if the ballot is to be counted.
Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer ruled in dismissing the suit that the “interpretations did not invalidate the Dating Provisions, as neither opinion struck the Dating Provisions from the Election Code or held that electors cannot or should not handwrite a date on the declaration in accordance with those provisions. Even under these interpretations, the Dating Provisions remain part of the Election Code and continue to instruct electors to date the declaration on the return mailing envelope, which, as history has shown, a majority of electors will do.”
Judge Patricia McCullough wrote in her concurring opinion that “the right of suffrage is a fundamental constitutional right as recognized by the Election Code. The citizens of Pennsylvania are entitled to elections that are fair and orderly and to be fully informed of the electoral process. In light of current precedent, I am constrained to concur with the Majority in the regards noted. The remaining state of flux confronting Pennsylvania citizens requires immediate establishment of clear direction in conformance with constitutional standards.”
In a post-ruling interview, Greg Teufel, the lawyer for the 14 Republican lawmakers, said he expects to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Loading ...