PA Supreme Court Vacates Commonwealth Court Decision on Dating Mail Ballots
4-3 vote makes it illegal for undated mail election ballots to be counted
September 13, 2024
No Comments
4-3 vote makes it illegal for undated mail election ballots to be counted
Voters whose mail ballots were rejected over an error were entitled to have their provisional ballots counted, Commonwealth Court said.
Republicans said they would immediately appeal the ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Your ballot isn’t in the mail, yet. First, it must be created, proofread, tested and printed. Only then does it go to the USPS.
Ruling sends a signal to election officials across the state about how to handle
Outcomes ride on timely delivery of ballots, they say, and delays aren’t being addressed effectively.
Hopes to eliminate chance of ballots being rejected because of voters failing to write in year completely
Suit claims commissioners knew which voters had made mail ballot envelope errors and would not notify for correction
Suit states County did not follow DOS guidance to count ballots that were signed but failed to completely fill in correct year
Voters can begin requesting mail ballot online for Nov. 5 election through newly redesigned, user-friendly online application
By a 4-3 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a decision by the state’s Commonwealth Court, finding it unconstitutional for undated mail ballots to be counted.
Justices Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy, Kevin Brobson and Daniel McCaffery wrote that the Commonwealth Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter given the failure to name the county boards of elections of all 67 counties,” and because the joinder of Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt “did not suffice to invoke the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction.”
Commonwealth Court had ruled that strict enforcement of the Election Code’s requirement that electors write a date on the envelope of their absentee or mail-in ballot violated the Free and Equal Elections clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Justice David Wecht, writing in his dissent, said that “a prompt and definitive ruling on the constitutional question presented in this appeal is of paramount public importance inasmuch as it will affect the counting of ballots in the upcoming general election.”
He also wrote that he “would exercise this Court’s King Bench authority over the instant dispute and order that the matter be submitted on the briefs.”
Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Christine Donohue also dissented.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the power to consider any case pending in a lower court and even some matters not pending in the courts when it sees the need to address an issue of “immediate public importance.” When it does so, the Court exercises its “King’s Bench power” which gives the Supreme Court the authority to supervise and administer the judiciary.
The Supreme Court exercises these powers only on rare occasions and has exercised them to take jurisdiction of cases such as those involving election disputes, among others.
This is a developing story.
By a 4-3 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a decision by the state’s Commonwealth Court, finding it unconstitutional for undated mail ballots to be counted.
Justices Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy, Kevin Brobson and Daniel McCaffery wrote that the Commonwealth Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter given the failure to name the county boards of elections of all 67 counties,” and because the joinder of Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt “did not suffice to invoke the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction.”
Commonwealth Court had ruled that strict enforcement of the Election Code’s requirement that electors write a date on the envelope of their absentee or mail-in ballot violated the Free and Equal Elections clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Justice David Wecht, writing in his dissent, said that “a prompt and definitive ruling on the constitutional question presented in this appeal is of paramount public importance inasmuch as it will affect the counting of ballots in the upcoming general election.”
He also wrote that he “would exercise this Court’s King Bench authority over the instant dispute and order that the matter be submitted on the briefs.”
Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Christine Donohue also dissented.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the power to consider any case pending in a lower court and even some matters not pending in the courts when it sees the need to address an issue of “immediate public importance.” When it does so, the Court exercises its “King’s Bench power” which gives the Supreme Court the authority to supervise and administer the judiciary.
The Supreme Court exercises these powers only on rare occasions and has exercised them to take jurisdiction of cases such as those involving election disputes, among others.
This is a developing story.
By a 4-3 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a decision by the state’s Commonwealth Court, finding it unconstitutional for undated mail ballots to be counted.
Justices Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy, Kevin Brobson and Daniel McCaffery wrote that the Commonwealth Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter given the failure to name the county boards of elections of all 67 counties,” and because the joinder of Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt “did not suffice to invoke the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction.”
Commonwealth Court had ruled that strict enforcement of the Election Code’s requirement that electors write a date on the envelope of their absentee or mail-in ballot violated the Free and Equal Elections clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Justice David Wecht, writing in his dissent, said that “a prompt and definitive ruling on the constitutional question presented in this appeal is of paramount public importance inasmuch as it will affect the counting of ballots in the upcoming general election.”
He also wrote that he “would exercise this Court’s King Bench authority over the instant dispute and order that the matter be submitted on the briefs.”
Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Christine Donohue also dissented.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the power to consider any case pending in a lower court and even some matters not pending in the courts when it sees the need to address an issue of “immediate public importance.” When it does so, the Court exercises its “King’s Bench power” which gives the Supreme Court the authority to supervise and administer the judiciary.
The Supreme Court exercises these powers only on rare occasions and has exercised them to take jurisdiction of cases such as those involving election disputes, among others.
This is a developing story.
By a 4-3 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a decision by the state’s Commonwealth Court, finding it unconstitutional for undated mail ballots to be counted.
Justices Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy, Kevin Brobson and Daniel McCaffery wrote that the Commonwealth Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter given the failure to name the county boards of elections of all 67 counties,” and because the joinder of Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt “did not suffice to invoke the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction.”
Commonwealth Court had ruled that strict enforcement of the Election Code’s requirement that electors write a date on the envelope of their absentee or mail-in ballot violated the Free and Equal Elections clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Justice David Wecht, writing in his dissent, said that “a prompt and definitive ruling on the constitutional question presented in this appeal is of paramount public importance inasmuch as it will affect the counting of ballots in the upcoming general election.”
He also wrote that he “would exercise this Court’s King Bench authority over the instant dispute and order that the matter be submitted on the briefs.”
Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Christine Donohue also dissented.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the power to consider any case pending in a lower court and even some matters not pending in the courts when it sees the need to address an issue of “immediate public importance.” When it does so, the Court exercises its “King’s Bench power” which gives the Supreme Court the authority to supervise and administer the judiciary.
The Supreme Court exercises these powers only on rare occasions and has exercised them to take jurisdiction of cases such as those involving election disputes, among others.
This is a developing story.
Did The Presidential Debate Change Your Vote?
Loading ...