HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court made a significant ruling on Monday regarding ongoing ballot counting in the U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Bob Casey and Republican challenger David McCormick. The court instructed counties to refrain from counting mail-in ballots that do not have a properly handwritten date on their return envelopes.

This decision is seen as advantageous for McCormick while presenting a setback for Casey as both campaigns gear up for a potential statewide recount and press local election officials for favorable outcomes in ballot counting. The Democratic-majority Supreme Court reiterated its earlier stance that such improperly dated ballots should not be considered valid in the election, although three Democratic-led counties are contesting this ruling.

According to recent reports, McCormick has been declared the race’s winner by various outlets, with it being assessed that there are insufficient remaining ballots in Casey’s winning areas to surpass McCormick’s lead.

As of the latest update, McCormick is ahead by roughly 17,000 votes from nearly 7 million counted ballots, which falls within the 0.5% margin required to initiate an automatic statewide recount under Pennsylvania law.

Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Republicans argued that allowing the counting of these ballots contravenes the court’s previous decisions and the state’s requirements for proper dating. They emphasize that the date on mail-in ballots is vital for ensuring ballot security.

In contrast, election boards in Democratic-majority areas such as Montgomery, Philadelphia, and Bucks County decided to count the improperly dated ballots, citing that the date does not provide any relevant information about a voter’s eligibility or the authenticity of a ballot. Despite this, most counties, particularly those in densely populated regions with Democratic control, opted not to include these ballots in their counts.

Democratic voters have been more likely to submit mail-in ballots than their Republican counterparts. Historically, Democratic officials have argued in favor of counting ballots, even when they fail to meet what they perceive as inconsequential clerical mandates.

The dating requirement has faced opposition from various courts across multiple cases, including a judgment by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, higher courts have consistently restored the necessity for the date.

Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has postponed its decision on another case that questions whether this law infringes upon citizens’ constitutional voting rights.

During the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, McCormick adopted a viewpoint similar to that of Democrats in an attempt to narrow the vote gap with Dr. Mehmet Oz. In that instance, McCormick’s attorney articulated that the essence of Pennsylvania’s election law is to facilitate voting rather than create complications for voters.