The federal court stated it The requirement of Pennsylvania’s date on post voting violates both the first and 14 corrections United States Constitution.
District judge’s decision Susan Baxterdenominator President Donald TrumpIt means that 67 poviats of the community of nations cannot reject unsatisfied and unjustly obsolete postal votes.
🚨 Breaking: Federal Court rule that the requirement of Pennsylvania’s date to vote by post violates the first and 14th amendments. Poviats cannot reject voting from counting shortages and wrongly obsolete voting cards.
The huge victory of my office, our DSCC and DCC clients and voters of PA!
– Marc Elias (@Marcelia.bsky.social) March 31, 2025 at 2:44 pm
In November 2022, two citizens – Bette Eakin AND Ines Massella – Together with Fetterman for PA, the Democratic Commission of the Senate Campaign and the Democratic Committee of the Congress Campaign filed a lawsuit at the American District Court in Western Pennsylvania.
A lawsuit against 67 election boards in Pennsylvania questioned the “date instructions” to post voting, which prevents non -reaching and improperly obsolete postal cards for postal voting cards.
The plaintiffs claimed that this policy violated Creating the significance of the Act on civic rights By refusing the person to vote because of which is not critical to determine the eligibility of this unit. The plaintiffs argued that the date of the date is irrelevant, because “the law in Pennsylvania determines the qualification of voters on the basis of the date of elections – and not at the date of voting -[so] The date of the date does not contain information about whether the voter is qualified. “
Constitutional changes came into the game when the plaintiffs claimed that, by unjustified burden of voting, the policy violated the first and 14th amendment.
In March 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that the date of the date did not violate the provision of significance. But the Court of Appeal did not terminate the constitutional claims.
The 21-page opinion solved these questions, saying that “the right to vote does not necessarily include the right to count voting.” The first part of the test was met because “deprivation of voters in defects in their voting cards imposes significant burden on voting rights, even if the effort needed for the voter to properly complete the vote seems small when considered in isolation.”
The second question concerns the external date of the voting envelope and “mainly applies to the mechanics of the election process or implies basic political speech.”
After recognizing that the date of the date burden the right to vote in the first amendment, the court stated that the burden only imposes “minimal” load, because the date of the date is non -discriminatory.
However, Pennsylvania did not defend any interests that were served, imposing even a minimal burden on the right to vote. There is also no majority of 67 of the “defendants” election council “” identified interest in the demand for dating the external envelope of their voting. “
The only defendants who have Berks and the Republican National Committee, which argue that “dating requirement combines the community’s interest in detecting voters’ fraud.” The decision states that there is no evidence showing how the requirement “is convinced that allegedly interest.”
Using Anderson-Burdick balancing test – which requires the courts from the courts, which the state imposes on the election participation in relation to the state benefits found – although the way in which the courts should conduct this balance is the subject of many disputes and uncertainty.
The Tribunal decided: “Because there is no evidence that the date of the date serves all the interests of the state, even a diminutive burden on voting rights cannot withstand constitutional control. In other words, even the slightest burden resulting from the enforcement of the date of the date is too high when there is no counterweight.
“In this case, the burden of citizens’ burden to the right to vote is not balanced by the evidence of any government interest. Therefore, the enforcement of the date of the date does not undergo constitutional meetings.”
The Pennsylvania Department issued this statement after releasing the decision.
“Today’s decision of the Federal Court is the victory of voters in Pennsylvania. The basic right to vote voter should not be burdened with senseless technique. Elections of the union of the Fountain already confirm that each vote has been sent and received in the legal voting window.
The Shapiro administration fought to protect every qualifying voter and ensure that our choices would remain free, fair, safe and safe. The Tribunal improved this when he emphasized what the secretary Schmidt said: “There is no interest in rejecting timely voting cards from qualifying voters who simply neglected the correct dating of the return of the return.”
We are looking at the decision and we will work on providing election officials in understanding and compliance with current election regulations. “
Updated with a quote from DOS.
