Supreme Court Refuses to Block Swing State Mail-In Ballot Decision Days Before Election
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in a lower court decision that allows Pennsylvania voters to cast a provisional ballot if their mail-in ballots are rejected due to errors.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a statement joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, acknowledged that the issue is of “considerable importance” but noted that ruling in favor of the Republican National Committee (RNC) at this point “could not prevent the consequences they fear.”
This comes after a close 4-3 decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Oct. 23, which permitted voters whose mail-in ballots were disqualified to vote provisionally in person. Republicans argued that this decision “dramatically” altered the election process and “departed from the plain terms of the Election Code.”
The RNC requested that the U.S. Supreme Court block this ruling on Monday, asserting in their petition that this was “the second consecutive presidential election in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has changed important election rules at the last minute.”
“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 wrote in their emergency application. They emphasized that a post-election review of the state court’s authority could provide “invaluable guidance for future elections.”
Alito noted that the lower court’s ruling “concerns just two votes in the long-completed Pennsylvania primary” and that suspending the judgment “would not impose any binding obligation on any of the Pennsylvania officials responsible for this year’s election.” He further explained that since only election officials from a single small county are involved in this case, the Court cannot mandate other election boards to separate affected ballots.
In response, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party argued that the RNC had provided “no sound reason” to overturn the lower court’s decision, describing the state Supreme Court’s ruling as a “straightforward and correct interpretation of Pennsylvania law.” The Democrats stated that allowing voters to cast a provisional ballot “rather than being disenfranchised altogether” was in line with the law.
Attorneys for Butler County voters Faith Genser and Frank Matis countered the RNC’s claims, asserting in a filing that the RNC “selectively” quoted the Pennsylvania Election Code to misrepresent the state Supreme Court’s reasoning.