Supreme Court Rejects Dispute Over Pennsylvania Mail-In Ballots
The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to hear a case brought by civil and voting rights organizations challenging Pennsylvania’s rule that mail-in ballots must include a handwritten date on the outer envelope.
The groups contended that this requirement is unnecessary and has led to valid ballots being discarded. However, the justices declined to review a lower court decision that upheld the rule, rejecting claims that it violated federal law, which prohibits rejecting ballots over 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 while the date requirement "serves little apparent purpose"—since it does not verify whether a ballot was received on time—it is still legally valid. The court concluded that the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to voter registration rules that determine eligibility, rather than to the procedural steps required for a ballot to be counted.
Pennsylvania, a key battleground state in presidential elections, once again played a pivotal role last year. President Donald Trump secured a victory in the state over his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, marking a reversal of his loss to then-President Joe Biden four years prior.
The contested rule affects Pennsylvania’s mail-in voters, who must place their completed ballot in a secrecy envelope, then seal it inside an outer return envelope. Voters are also required to sign and date a declaration on the outer envelope affirming their eligibility.
The lawsuit, led by the Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, was filed against state and county election officials in 2022 under the Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision.
That provision states that no one can be denied the 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 sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the date requirement was irrelevant to assessing voter qualifications or ballot timeliness. However, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed that ruling, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Reuters further reported that the plaintiffs, in their appeal, argued to the Supreme Court that the "total lack of relevance" of the date requirement was undisputed. They contended that as mail-in voting becomes more prevalent, Pennsylvania’s rule leads to "the needless disenfranchisement of thousands of voters each election, especially seniors of all political stripes."
Attorneys for the Republican National Committee and the state Republican Party, who intervened in defense of the date requirement, urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal. In their filing, they maintained that the plaintiffs were opposing election rules "designed to prevent fraud and protect the integrity of elections."
Following the November elections, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took action against what appeared to be an attempt by Democrat-led counties to count ballots that had previously been ruled invalid under state law.
This decision followed statements from Democratic officials in Bucks County and elsewhere, who expressed their intent to tally ballots that failed to meet Pennsylvania’s legal requirements amid a close contest between incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey and GOP challenger Dave McCormack, a race that the Associated Press 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, as she voted to count ballots missing the two legally mandated signatures on the 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 issue was resolved, and the contested ballots were not counted.