Pennsylvania Court Rules Mail Ballots Without Dates Must Be Counted

Unconstitutional Requirement for Dated Mail-In Ballots

On October 30, a Pennsylvania court declared that the state's requirement for mail-in ballots to be correctly dated to be counted is unconstitutional. The judge's opinion stated that the 3–2 decision only applies to a past special election.

Commonwealth Court Upholds Ruling

A Commonwealth Court panel agreed with a Philadelphia judge's ruling that 69 ballots from the special election, which were submitted on time but lacked handwritten dates, should be counted. Despite Pennsylvania law requiring mail-in voters to date the envelope in which the ballot is returned, Commonwealth Court Judge Ellen Ceisler stated that "multiple state and federal courts have determined that the dating provisions are meaningless, as they do not establish voter eligibility, timely ballot receipt, or fraud".

Dissenting Opinions

However, Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough disagreed, arguing that the court should not have made a decision at this time as it "surely will confuse the expectations of both voters and county boards of elections alike". She further expressed concern that the timing of the decision deprives the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of a reasonable opportunity to review before the Nov. 5 election. Another dissenting opinion was voiced by Commonwealth Court Judge Matthew Wolf.

Reaction to the Ruling

Stephen Loney, senior supervising attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, hailed the ruling, stating that "Pennsylvania voters cannot be disenfranchised for trivial reasons". He argued that the dates written on return envelopes are completely meaningless and that disqualifying voters for minor errors is a violation of the state constitution. The ruling was a blow to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, who had asked the appeals court to overturn an earlier ruling that required the counting of the 69 ballots. The Republicans have not yet reacted to the ruling.

Future Adjudication

Mimi McKenzie, legal director of the Public Interest Law Center, suggested that the date requirement may be adjudicated further in the future and encouraged voters to still date the envelope in which a ballot is returned.

Bottom Line

This ruling highlights the ongoing debate about the validity and requirements of mail-in voting. It raises questions about the balance between preventing voter fraud and ensuring that every eligible vote is counted. What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you believe the requirement for dating mail-in ballots is necessary or unnecessary? Share this article with your friends and let us know your thoughts. Remember, you can sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6 pm.