HARRISBURG, Pa. — In a notable ruling on Wednesday, a Pennsylvania appeals court clarified that voters are not required to accurately hand-date the envelopes used for mail ballots. This decision came just days before the presidential election, as the state Supreme Court chose not to engage with the subject previously.
The 3-2 ruling made by the Commonwealth Court upheld a decision from a Philadelphia judge, who ruled that 69 mail ballots should be included in the count from two special elections for the state House of Representatives held in September. The court argued that enforcing strict rules for exterior envelope dates was unnecessary for verifying whether ballots were submitted on time, and that such requirements could infringe on a constitutional guarantee that elections should be fair and free from interference regarding the voting process.
Judge Ellen Ceisler, who authored the majority opinion, highlighted that the existing envelope dating regulations unjustly limited the right of some voters to see their ballots counted, particularly those who might have made minor errors in dating their submissions. In a footnote, Ceisler encouraged the Republican parties, who did not prevail in this case, to expedite any potential appeals they might consider.
Linda A. Kerns, the attorney representing the Republican factions, confirmed intentions to appeal soon, asserting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already addressed this issue. She emphasized the importance of signatures and dates on mail ballots as essential components of election integrity.
Meanwhile, the attorneys representing the Philadelphia voters whose ballots were in question celebrated the court’s decision while also recognizing that this may not necessarily mark the end of the legal discourse on the topic. Legal director of the Public Interest Law Center, Mimi McKenzie, expressed hope that all counties would respect this ruling in their future mail ballot procedures, advising voters to still ensure they date their return envelopes and correct any mistakes if possible.
In dissent, Judge Matthew Wolf criticized the majority for not allowing the state Supreme Court to review the case or delaying the decision until after the election. He stated that the majority’s conclusion conveyed the message that disallowing ballots based on dating issues would breach the free and equal elections clause established in Pennsylvania’s Constitution.
Judge Patricia McCullough, also dissenting, characterized the majority’s ruling as a significant and last-minute alteration of voting rules that lacked sufficient justification. She expressed concern over how such decisions could endanger the integrity of elections and erode public confidence in the electoral process.
Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court declined a request from voting rights groups to prevent counties from discarding mail-in ballots that did not have the handwritten dates, emphasizing the principle that courts should refrain from causing voter confusion in the lead-up to elections.