Supreme Court Allows Pennsylvania Voters to Submit Provisional Ballots Despite Mail-in Ballots Issues

The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday delivered a blow to the Republican Party by permitting Pennsylvania voters whose mail-in ballots were flagged as possibly defective to submit an additional provisional in-person ballot. The justices, without any noted dissents, turned down a Republican request to suspend a ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made the previous week.

Supreme Court's Inaction

Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative member of the court, issued a short statement explaining that while the matter is of "considerable importance," there were various reasons for the court not to intervene at this moment. His statement was supported by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. As pointed out by Alito, this case stemmed from a disagreement concerning two ballots submitted during the recently conducted Democratic primary in Butler County. The potential implications of this ruling on the upcoming general election could have far-reaching legal consequences, particularly if it affects several thousand(ballots) in close statewide contests within this pivotal swing state.

Legal Precedents and Implications

Pennsylvania's counties, responsible for administering elections, had already allowed voters to cast provisional ballots for mail-in ballots lacking a secrecy envelope, even prior to the recent ruling by the state Supreme Court. Some counties had not adopted this practice, indicating potential for further litigation in the near future.

The state court's determination that mail-in ballots flagged by machines as lacking the requisite secondary "secrecy envelopes," as mandated by Pennsylvania law, are void, hence affording the voter the option to cast a provisional ballot, was contested by the Republicans. They argued that state law dictates the outright rejection of such ballots, without allowing for a remedial action by the voters. This interpretation extended not only to ballots devoid of secrecy sleeves but also encompassed those that were not dated, incorrectly dated, or lacked a signature.

While the state was not a party to the lawsuit, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court, advocating for the justices to refrain from intervening. The rationale was that the ruling from the top state court did not constitute a significant alteration in the election procedures. The state's legal representatives contended that Supreme Court intervention would merely serve to preclude the counting of two votes in the Democratic primary long after the fact.

This litigation raises a salient legal question for conservatives on the Supreme Court: whether the ruling from Pennsylvania's high court unlawfully encroaches upon the Legislature's authority to establish election rules as per the U.S. Constitution. This issue was previously addressed by the Supreme Court last year, which largely dismissed the "independent state legislature" theory, asserting that legislatures possess unrestricted authority over elections, while leaving the door ajar for future reevaluation of the matter.

Political Implications and Legal Battles

In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, Republican leaders vociferously argued against what they perceived as inappropriate alterations to election rules by Democratic officials and state courts, primarily in response to health concerns stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic. These assertions became a focal point of then-President Donald Trump's unsuccessful attempts to overturn the election outcome. Notably, Trump consistently decried the expanded use of mail-in voting during the 2020 campaign.

Origins and Legal Sequence

The current legal battle emerged when two voters from Butler County, Faith Genser and Frank Matis, dispatched defective mail-in ballots during the primary election and were subsequently informed that their votes would not be counted. In response, they cast provisional ballots in person. Following an adverse ruling in a trial court, the Republican National Committee intervened, leading to a series of appeals that ultimately culminated in a favorable decision for Genser and Matis by the intermediate appeals court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Unperturbed, the Republicans escalated the matter once again to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The legal maneuverings are part of a broader strategy by the Republican National Committee and affiliated legal entities, who have initiated a slew of lawsuits in swing states, including Pennsylvania, ahead of the 2024 general election. The orchestrated efforts come amidst continued unfounded allegations of widespread election fraud, with former President Donald Trump being a prominent figure amplifying these concerns.

Electoral Landscape in Pennsylvania

In the 2020 election, President Joe Biden emerged victorious in Pennsylvania by a margin of just over 80,000 votes. The outcome in this crucial swing state underscored the significance of every single vote, further accentuating the legal disputes that have ensued in the wake of the election.