US Supreme Court rebuffs Republicans on Pennsylvania provisional ballots
Pennsylvania is one of the election battleground states
Voters sought to have their provisional ballots counted
Adds comment from lawyer for plaintiffs in paragraphs 8-9
By Andrew Chung
Nov 1 (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Friday a Republican bid to block the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters in the election battleground state of Pennsylvania who make mistakes on their mail-in ballots in a decision that could affect thousands of votes in Tuesday's presidential election.
The justices denied an emergency request by the Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Pennsylvania to put on hold the Oct. 23 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in favor of two Butler County voters who sought to have their provisional ballots counted after their mail-in ballots were rejected during that state's primary election for lacking secrecy envelopes.
Pennsylvania is one of a handful of closely contested states expected to decide the outcome of the presidential race between Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Supreme Court, as is common in emergency matters, issued the decision without explaining its reasoning.
Provisional ballots generally protect voters from being excluded from the voting process if their eligibility is uncertain on Election Day. The vote is counted once officials confirm eligibility.
Harris campaign spokesperson Michael Tyler and Democratic National Committee spokesperson Rosemary Boeglin said in a joint statement after the Supreme Court acted: "In Pennsylvania and across the country, Trump and his allies are trying to make it harder for your vote to count, but our institutions are stronger than his shameful attacks. (Friday's) decision confirms that, for every eligible voter, the right to vote means the right to have your vote counted."
The Pennsylvania court's ruling could apply to thousands of ballots, possibly more, according to elections experts. The ruling let individuals who learn that their mail-in vote packages were rejected for lacking a mandatory signature, date or secrecy envelope to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day, and for that vote to be counted.
Attorneys for the Butler County voters who brought the case called Friday's decision a win for democracy.
Ben Geffen, a lawyer with the Philadelphia-based Public Interest Law Center, said it ensures that "all qualified voters deserve a chance to vote, even if they have made a technical error on their mail ballot. This is a step toward a more inclusive election process that respects the rights of all Pennsylvanians."
The Republicans had told the justices that "tens of thousands of votes" could be at stake and should not be counted "in a state which many anticipate could be decisive in control of the U.S. Senate or even the 2024 presidential election."
If mail-in ballots are received on time but are defective, under the text of state election law those voters should not get a "redo via provisional ballot," the Republicans said in a filing. Pennsylvania's top court has usurped the state legislature's authority and changed rules too close to the election, the Republicans said.
Unlike Butler County, the majority of Pennsylvania's 67 counties already counted provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in ballots are rejected.
'CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE'
While no dissents were noted in the Supreme Court's action on Friday, conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said that the request by the Republicans raised a "matter of considerable importance."
However, these justices said in a statement authored by Alito that they could not offer relief in part because the case involved just one county dispute, and blocking the state court's decision "would not impose any binding obligation on any of the Pennsylvania officials who are responsible for the conduct of this year's election."
Though the case began with two voters challenging a single county's refusal to count their provisional ballots, Republicans intervened to defend the county's decision.
Democrats intervened on the side of the voters, contending that if a defective mail-in ballot cannot be counted, that person has not yet voted and a provisional ballot must be counted. A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, saying that provisional ballots serve the "dual purpose" of preventing double voting while protecting voter's right to have one vote counted.
The state constitution's voting protections do not allow for the "disenfranchisement of voters as punishment for failure to conform to the mail-in voting requirements when voters properly availed themselves of the provisional voting mechanism," the state court said.
Republicans had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to apply its 2023 ruling that allows the justices to second-guess state courts in certain cases to ensure they do not "arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections."
In another election-related case, the court on Wednesday reinstated Virginia's decision to purge from its voter rolls about 1,600 people who state officials concluded were not U.S. citizens, though Biden's administration and voting rights advocates said some actual citizens were struck. The court did not disclose its reasoning. The three liberal justices dissented.
Republicans ask US Supreme Court to block Pennsylvania provisional ballots decision nL1N3M40VH
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Additional reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham
면책조항: XM Group 회사는 체결 전용 서비스와 온라인 거래 플랫폼에 대한 접근을 제공하여, 개인이 웹사이트에서 또는 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능한 콘텐츠를 보거나 사용할 수 있도록 허용합니다. 이에 대해 변경하거나 확장할 의도는 없습니다. 이러한 접근 및 사용에는 다음 사항이 항상 적용됩니다: (i) 이용 약관, (ii) 위험 경고, (iii) 완전 면책조항. 따라서, 이러한 콘텐츠는 일반적인 정보에 불과합니다. 특히, 온라인 거래 플랫폼의 콘텐츠는 금융 시장에서의 거래에 대한 권유나 제안이 아닙니다. 금융 시장에서의 거래는 자본에 상당한 위험을 수반합니다.
온라인 거래 플랫폼에 공개된 모든 자료는 교육/정보 목적으로만 제공되며, 금융, 투자세 또는 거래 조언 및 권고, 거래 가격 기록, 금융 상품 또는 원치 않는 금융 프로모션의 거래 제안 또는 권유를 포함하지 않으며, 포함해서도 안됩니다.
이 웹사이트에 포함된 모든 의견, 뉴스, 리서치, 분석, 가격, 기타 정보 또는 제3자 사이트에 대한 링크와 같이 XM이 준비하는 콘텐츠 뿐만 아니라, 제3자 콘텐츠는 일반 시장 논평으로서 "현재" 기준으로 제공되며, 투자 조언으로 여겨지지 않습니다. 모든 콘텐츠가 투자 리서치로 해석되는 경우, 투자 리서치의 독립성을 촉진하기 위해 고안된 법적 요건에 따라 콘텐츠가 의도되지 않았으며, 준비되지 않았다는 점을 인지하고 동의해야 합니다. 따라서, 관련 법률 및 규정에 따른 마케팅 커뮤니케이션이라고 간주됩니다. 여기에서 접근할 수 있는 앞서 언급한 정보에 대한 비독립 투자 리서치 및 위험 경고 알림을 읽고, 이해하시기 바랍니다.
