The Supreme Court has allowed Pennsylvania to count provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in votes were rejected, a decision that could significantly impact the upcoming election in this crucial battleground state.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court upholds Pennsylvania’s use of provisional ballots for rejected mail-in votes
- Decision could result in thousands more votes being counted in Pennsylvania
- Ruling comes after Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided voters should not be disenfranchised for forgetting secrecy envelope
- Nearly 9,000 mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were returned without a secrecy envelope as of Thursday
- Pennsylvania is a significant battleground state with 19 electoral votes
Supreme Court Decision and Its Implications
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to block a lower court ruling that allows Pennsylvania voters to cast provisional ballots if their mail-in votes are rejected due to technical errors. This decision could have far-reaching consequences in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, which holds 19 electoral votes and plays a crucial role in the presidential election.
The ruling stems from a case where two voters had their mail-in ballots rejected and were subsequently denied provisional ballots. Pennsylvania law requires mail-in ballots to be placed in two envelopes: an inner secrecy envelope and an outer mailing envelope. As of Thursday, nearly 9,000 mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were returned without the required secrecy envelope.
Republican Opposition and Legal Arguments
Republicans have strongly opposed this decision, arguing that it significantly alters election rules and deviates from the Election Code. The Republican National Committee (RNC) petitioned the Supreme Court to block the ruling, citing concerns about changes in election rules for the second consecutive presidential election.
“Even if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision does not change the outcome of any election, the question of whether the provisional ballots can be added to the vote total would remain a concrete dispute this Court can review,” the RNC stated in their petition.
Justice Samuel Alito, while acknowledging the importance of the issue, stated that siding with the RNC wouldn’t prevent the feared consequences. He noted that the lower court’s decision involved only two votes from a past primary and wouldn’t affect current election officials’ obligations.
Democratic Response and Voter Rights
Democrats have welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, viewing it as a victory for voter rights and electoral participation. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party argued that there was no valid reason to block the lower court’s decision, asserting that it was a correct interpretation of Pennsylvania law.
“Put simply, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding that a voter whose mail ballot is not counted may exercise her statutory right to vote provisionally (rather than being disenfranchised altogether) was a straightforward and correct interpretation of Pennsylvania law,” the Pennsylvania Democratic Party stated.
This ruling aligns with recent court decisions in Pennsylvania that claim to protect voter rights. In Erie County, a judge ruled that voters who did not receive their mail ballots could get replacements through Monday. Similarly, in Bucks County, a court extended the deadline for voters to apply for and receive mail-in ballots due to a lawsuit from the Trump campaign.
