Supreme Court Rejects Dispute Over Pennsylvania Mail-In Ballots
The Supreme Court has opted not to hear a challenge from civil and voting rights organizations aiming to overturn Pennsylvania’s rule that mandates mail-in ballots include a handwritten date on the outer envelope.
Challengers argued that the requirement is unnecessary and has resulted in the rejection of legitimate ballots. However, the justices declined to review a lower court’s decision, which upheld the rule and dismissed claims that it violated federal law. That law prevents ballots from being discarded due to paperwork errors that are "not material" to determining a voter's eligibility.
In 2024, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia, ruled that although the date mandate "serves little apparent purpose"—since it is not used to confirm whether a ballot was received on time—it is still legally valid. The court reasoned that the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to rules governing voter registration and eligibility, rather than to procedures dictating how ballots must be submitted to be counted.
Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state in presidential elections, played a pivotal role once again last year. President Donald Trump carried the state over Democratic opponent and former Vice President Kamala Harris in November, reclaiming a state he had lost to then-President Joe Biden four years earlier.
The rule at the heart of the dispute affects mail-in voters in Pennsylvania, who must place their completed ballots inside a secrecy envelope and then into an outer return envelope. On that return envelope, voters are required to sign and date a declaration affirming their eligibility to vote.
Plaintiffs, including the Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit in 2022 against state and county election officials under the Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision.
That section of the law prohibits denying a person’s right to vote "because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote."
Initially, a federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, asserting that the date requirement had no bearing on voter qualifications or ballot timeliness. However, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling, prompting the plaintiffs to seek Supreme Court intervention.
Reuters further reported that in their filing, the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the "total lack of relevance" of the date on the outer envelope is undisputed. They argued that as mail-in voting becomes more prevalent, Pennsylvania’s rule is leading to "the needless disenfranchisement of thousands of voters each election, especially seniors of all political stripes."
Attorneys representing the Republican National Committee and the state Republican Party, who intervened to support the envelope date requirement, urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal. In their filing, they contended that the plaintiffs were challenging voting regulations "designed to prevent fraud and protect the integrity of elections."
Following the November elections, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court moved to block what appeared to be efforts by Democrat-led counties to count ballots that justices and state law had previously deemed illegal and, therefore, ineligible.
This ruling came after Democratic officials in Bucks County and other areas signaled their intent to count ballots that failed to meet the state’s legal standards. This occurred during a close race between Democratic Senator Bob Casey and Republican challenger Dave McCormack, a contest that the Associated Press ultimately called for the Republican.
“I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country,” Democratic Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia said at the time. She voted to count ballots where voters failed to provide the two legally required signatures on the outer envelope. “People violate laws anytime they want. So, for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want the court to pay attention. There’s nothing more important than counting votes.”
Ultimately, the dispute was resolved, and the counties did not include ballots deemed illegal in their final tallies.