A U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia convened on Tuesday to deliberate whether Pennsylvania’s mandate for voters to accurately date mail-in ballots adheres to federal voting law.
The issue of whether ballots lacking or containing incorrect dates should be counted has been pivotal in elections since Pennsylvania’s no-excuse absentee voting law was enacted in 2020. The outcome of the current case before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals will shape the handling of such ballots in the crucial 2024 presidential election, where Pennsylvania holds significant importance as a battleground state.
Representing the national and state Republican parties, Washington, D.C., lawyer John Gore urged the three-judge panel to overturn a lower court ruling that favored the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), voting rights groups, and individual voters. Last year, Erie-based U.S. District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter ruled against discarding ballots lacking or with incorrect dates on the outer envelope, arguing that such rejections violated a federal law aimed at safeguarding voters against disenfranchisement.
Gore argued that the requirement to date the voter declaration on the ballot envelope serves a significant purpose in affirming the voter’s identity, emphasizing that it’s the only piece of information officials can cross-reference since Pennsylvania law prohibits signature comparisons. He cited an instance where a Lancaster County woman was convicted of forgery for submitting her deceased mother’s ballot, pointing out that the date played a crucial role in prosecuting her.
However, lawyers representing the ACLU, NAACP, League of Women Voters, and Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt contended that the lower court’s ruling was justified. They highlighted that in the 2022 election, over 10,000 Pennsylvania voters were denied their right to vote due to trivial paperwork errors, which contradicted the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s materiality clause aimed at preventing voter disenfranchisement.
The court debate delved into the interpretation of the materiality clause, with U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro suggesting that it draws a distinction between registering to vote and actually casting a ballot. However, he acknowledged the broader intention of the law to prevent discrimination that could impede voting rights. U.S. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz raised doubts about the significance of the date requirement, highlighting evidence suggesting it was immaterial to the ballot’s validity.
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for Pennsylvania’s electoral process, particularly in ensuring the equitable treatment of voters and upholding the integrity of the ballot system.