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
Laatste nieuws
Disclaimer: De entiteiten van de XM Group bieden diensten en toegang tot ons online handelsplatform op basis van uitsluitend-uitvoering, waardoor een persoon de beschikbare content op of via de website kan bekijken en/of gebruiken, zonder dat dit is bedoeld voor wijziging of uitbreiding. Dergelijk(e) toegang en gebruik vallen onder: (i) de algemene voorwaarden; (ii) risicowaarschuwingen; en de (iii) volledige disclaimer. Dergelijke content wordt daarom alleen aangeboden als algemene informatie. Wees u er daarnaast vooral van bewust dat de inhoud op ons online handelsplatform geen verzoek of aanbieding omvat om transacties op de financiële markten uit te voeren. Het beleggen op welke financiële markt dan ook vormt een aanzienlijk risico voor uw vermogen.
Alle materialen die op ons online handelsplatform worden gepubliceerd zijn bedoeld voor educatieve/informatieve doeleinden en omvatten geen – en moeten niet worden beschouwd als het bevatten van – financieel, vermogensbelastings- of handelsadvies en aanbevelingen, of een overzicht van onze handelsprijzen, of een aanbod of aanvraag van een transactie in financiële instrumenten of ongevraagde financiële promoties voor u.
Alle content van derden, alsmede content die is voorbereid door XM, zoals opinies, nieuws, onderzoeken, analyses, prijzen en andere informatie of koppelingen naar externe websites op deze website worden aangeboden op een 'zoals-ze-zijn'-basis, als algemene marktcommentaren, en vormen geen beleggingsadvies. Voor zover dat content wordt beschouwd als beleggingsonderzoek, moet u zich ervan bewust zijn en accepteren dat de content niet bedoeld was en niet is voorbereid in overeenstemming met de wettelijke vereisten die zijn opgesteld om de onafhankelijkheid van beleggingsonderzoek te bevorderen en als zodanig onder de geldende wetgeving en richtlijnen moet worden beschouwd als marketingcommunicatie. Zorg ervoor dat u onze Mededeling over niet-onafhankelijk beleggingsonderzoek en risicowaarschuwing in verband met de voorgaande informatie doorneemt en begrijpt; die kunt u hier lezen.
