Judge rules that Pennsylvania county violated law by not informing voters about rejected ballots

A judge ruled that a Republican-controlled county in Pennsylvania violated state law by failing to notify voters that their mail-in ballots were rejected and would not be counted in the primary election last April. This lack of communication deprived voters in Washington County of their right to challenge the decision or cast a provisional ballot instead. The ruling is part of ongoing election-related lawsuits in Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state for the presidential contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in November.

David Gatling Sr., president of the NAACP branch in Washington, Pennsylvania, hailed the decision as a victory for voters in Washington County. The NAACP branch, along with seven voters whose ballots were rejected and the Center for Coalfield Justice, had filed the lawsuit against the county, alleging violations of voters’ due process rights by concealing the status of their ballots.

In response to the lawsuit, Judge Brandon Neuman ordered Washington County to inform voters of any rejected mail-in ballots due to errors like missing signatures or dates, allowing them the chance to challenge the decision and providing the option to vote by provisional ballot. The judge noted that in the primary, 259 mail-in ballots were rejected, accounting for 2% of timely received mail-in ballots, with a majority being cast by Democrats.

While the chairman of Washington County’s commissioners, Nick Sherman, expressed uncertainty about appealing the ruling, he defended the county’s practices as compliant with state law. Sherman criticized Judge Neuman, a Democrat, for what he deemed as judicial activism. However, the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s legal director, Witold Walczak, argued that county election workers can quickly identify errors in incoming mail-in ballots before processing without violating precanvassing rules, contrary to Sherman’s claims.

Walczak emphasized that most counties alert voters immediately if their mail-in ballots are rejected due to errors, aiding them in casting a valid ballot. The distinction between precanvassing and error notification is crucial, according to Walczak, refuting Sherman’s stance. The ongoing legal battle underscores the significance of transparency and due process in the electoral process as the November election approaches.