RNC Asks Supreme Court to Rule in Pennsylvania Provisional Ballots Case

Source: YouTube

As the 2024 election approaches, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sought emergency intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent Pennsylvania election officials from counting provisional ballots cast by voters whose initial mail-in ballots were rejected for lacking secrecy envelopes. This case, originating from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, could impact thousands of voters in this battleground state and potentially influence the presidential election's outcome.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Decision

The legal dispute began after two Butler County voters, who submitted mail-in ballots without secrecy envelopes, were notified their ballots would not be counted. These voters were advised to cast provisional ballots in person, which they did. However, the Butler County Election Board ultimately dismissed their provisional votes, arguing that Pennsylvania law prohibited counting such ballots once a mail-in ballot had been submitted, even if it was defective. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that provisional ballots should count if the mail-in ballots were rendered invalid due to missing secrecy envelopes. This ruling asserts that provisional ballots should offer voters an alternative if their mail-in ballots are voided due to technical issues.

The RNC argues that this decision oversteps the state legislature's authority, which, according to the independent state legislature doctrine (ISLD), should exclusively determine election procedures. They claim the state Supreme Court’s ruling infringes upon the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s jurisdiction and violates federal law by changing election rules close to Election Day. The RNC has requested that the Supreme Court prevent the Pennsylvania ruling from taking effect or, alternatively, require separate counting of these provisional ballots until a final decision is reached.

Legal Implications: The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

The RNC's appeal partially hinges on the ISLD, a controversial doctrine that argues state legislatures hold sole authority over election laws. This doctrine suggests that state courts should not have the power to reinterpret or alter legislatively established election rules. Although the Supreme Court previously declined to fully endorse the ISLD in Moore v. Harper (2023), the current case presents an opportunity for the Court to revisit and possibly expand on this doctrine.

If the Supreme Court decides to support the RNC's argument, the ruling could reinforce the ISLD, establishing a precedent that limits state courts’ ability to intervene in election law cases. This decision would not only affect Pennsylvania’s election procedures but could also influence future election disputes nationwide, particularly in cases where state courts’ rulings diverge from legislative statutes.

A Potentially Huge Impact on the 2024 Election

With Pennsylvania expected to play a pivotal role in determining the next president, this case has garnered national attention. Should the Supreme Court grant the RNC's request, it could result in a substantial number of provisional ballots going uncounted, potentially altering the election’s outcome if the results are close. Although estimates suggest only a small fraction of ballots are affected, even a marginal number could make a difference in a tightly contested state.

Additionally, the Court’s ruling on this issue could influence other pending cases related to provisional and mail-in ballots, setting the tone for how disputes are handled in future elections. The outcome will not only determine the fate of these ballots but could also shape the legal landscape for federal election law and the balance of power between state legislatures and courts.

The Clock is Ticking for November 5

Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees emergency appeals from Pennsylvania, has requested a response from opposing parties by Wednesday. The Supreme Court’s decision could come as early as this week, potentially affecting Pennsylvania’s handling of provisional ballots before Election Day. As the clock ticks closer to November, both sides await the Court's determination on whether state legislatures hold ultimate authority over election laws or if state courts can intervene to ensure democratic access for all eligible voters.

Do you support the idea that state courts have no power in election matters? Tell us what you think!

 Loading ...