(*5*)
In a shocking and, frankly, disappointing turn of events, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Saturday not to hear two highly significant cases involving mail-in ballots in the commonwealth.
In other words, they blew it. Pennsylvanians must now enter Election Day with no more clarity than in 2020.
The court rejected a request by a group of voting rights organizations to block a rule requiring absentee ballots to have a handwritten date on the return envelope. It’s incredible that we’re still litigating these envelopes four years later, but a majority of the court is concerned that changing voting rules too close to an election would be too risky.
The court therefore suggests changing the voting rules After are the choices better? I’m not a lawyer, but I understand how to read a calendar, and this decision seems nonsensical to me.
Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Debra Todd, who Is lawyer, seems to agree. She filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that Pennsylvania election officials and voters need the court’s guidance.
“We should resolve this important constitutional issue now, before ballots may be improperly rejected and voters may be disenfranchised,” Todd said.
Lest one think the court was favoring one side of the political conflict, it also denied a request by the Republican National Committee and the Pennsylvania Republican Party to prohibit county election officials from allowing voters to correct errors in mail-in ballots that could disqualify them from being counted.
It seems a good idea to keep the “report and fix” policy in place, as is known practice. The problem, however, is that there is no law that enforces uniformity when it comes to defective ballots: each county’s board of elections can decide how and whether to inform its voters that their mail on their ballots should be repaired, or – often – about rejecting ballots. without informing the voter. Thus, by taking no action, the court is allowing the free notice and treatment policy to continue, and each election board must essentially set its own rules.
Besides, it doesn’t look like a victory for voters. Or for precinct election officials and election commission workers.
The end result of the court’s inaction is more confusion for Pennsylvania voters who want to legally vote by mail under a law that Republicans and Democrats approved overwhelmingly in 2019.
The primary function of the state Supreme Court is to rule on significant matters affecting the Commonwealth, and the two petitions the Court declines to hear will have a direct impact on the outcome of the election. This is an electorate already exhausted by Pennsylvania’s battleground status, understaffed and overstressed election boards having to make decisions without desperately needed guidance from the Supreme Court.
It is now almost certain that the confusion and chaos that reigned after the 2020 election will repeat itself this year, only this time there will be more bad actors trying to find a loophole or an excuse to not count votes that I don’t like. Those tasked with overturning Pennsylvania’s election results are making things up just like they did four years ago, but this time they are prepared and training “poll watchers” to look for any perceived problems.
Let’s hope the state Supreme Court justices get some rest before the election, because if 2020 is any indication, after the polls close next month, if the outcome isn’t what one side wants, the court will be inundated with lawsuits.
Until then, however, the likely outcome is that thousands of Pennsylvanians could be disenfranchised as confusion reigns and bad faith actors take advantage of the chaos.
It’s a scarce court ruling that no one walks away joyful with, and on Election Day anyone could lose because our state’s Supreme Court took no action.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
