. United States 3. Court of Appeal On Tuesday, he maintained a lower court’s decision, which requires Pennsylvania to count the sloppy or unjustly antiquated voting cards, stating that the previous right rejecting such voting cards violated the first and 14 amendments.
“The requirement of the date imposes the constitutional burden of Pennsylvania’s right to vote”, The court took place in unanimous opinion 3-0. “The culmination that the Electoral Councils of the County reject thousands of voting cards every time the elections are held. The date of the date will not protect against the voter’s voter attempts.”
Judges Patty ShwartzObama’s denominator, Arianna J. Freeman (Biden) i D. Brooks Smith (GW Bush) He heard an appeal.
The opinion dropped only a day after the court blocked the application of the Republican National Committee (RNC) to remain a decision of a lower court to election in 2025, in which the Pennsylvania will vote on court retention, local offices and special choices to complete free legislative places. In their movement in search of the stay of the RNC, he noticed that the incorrect margin for postal voting was determining in several races.
The claim results from the case 2022, when the reasons-thepel Bette Eakin Whether her penal card was rejected during universal elections after she did not write a date on the return envelope. She filed a lawsuit against the Electoral Commission of the Ferrings in all 67 Pennsylvania’s unit, accusing the date of violation of the decision of the significance of the Act on civic rights, as well as the first and fourteenth amendment.
Only two of the 67 election committees of the defendant defended this requirement – Berks and Lancaster.
In her rulingDistrict Court Judge Susan Paradise BaxterThe denominator of Trump, determined that the materiality provision “is caused when the behavior or legal provisions are limited Who may vote “, but leaves” countries to make a decision How Qualified voters must cast a valid voting card. The Court ruled that because the date of the date is set in the act of throwing a voting card, it comes beyond the range of materiality reserve. “
Secondly, the District Court ruled that the requirement of the date violated the 1 and 14 of the amendments to the Constitution, because “he charged the right to vote and, above all, regulated the mechanics of the election process.”
Interestingly, the Tribunal stated that the requirement of the date imposed “minimal burden of Pennsylvania’s right voting”, citing the ease of making an envelope and that this requirement is “non -discriminatory”. But the Tribunal slammed the door with “proposed state interests that supported the date of the date – increasing the election performance, promoting the ceremony or preventing voter fraud” – saying that none of them “justified the burden that the requirement imposed”.
The District Court also emphasized that the Republican National Committee only issued a lonely case of the criminal case of election fraud with the participation of postal voting, and the fraud in this matter of Lancaster Fountains could be easily detected. Christa MillerThe main clerk of the election in Lancaster, said in the testimony that “an external envelope, which is lacking a hand -written date, is not a reason to suspect voters’ fraud.”
The appeal asked the third circuit to determine only whether the Pennsylvania community requirement that the voting cards that come to the sloppy or poorly developed return envelopes were rejected with its constitution.
The opinion of the District Court, written by Smith, emphasized that democracies should try to count every vote instead of hunting for disqualifying techniques. “It seems that the date of the date causes than facilitates the performance of the election. It does not add voting by nature,” wrote Smith. “Rejection of thousands of voting cards in every election is not a reasonable compromise in connection with the extremely confined and unlikely ability to detect and stop fraud.
“Due to the requirement of the date of the community of nations, an unintentional typographic or inverted number or even a stray pen mark in the Date field will remove the voting contained in the return envelope from consideration. And the voter may never be smarter.
“Discharging and counting is crucial for the democratic process. The requirement of the date does not play a role in the election administration, nor does it contribute to the additional measure of the ceremony except that created by the signature.
“By weighing these interests against the burden of voters, we are not able to justify the practice of the community consisting in rejecting voting cards contained in exchange for missing or incorrect dates that caused a disqualification of thousands of presumably appropriate votes.”
