Pennsylvania Supreme Court Tosses Right-Wing Challenge To Absentee Ballot Return Rules
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed a legal bid from two Republican legislators to alter existing rules about where voters can return their completed absentee ballots for tabulation.
In a lawsuit filed earlier this year, GOP Pennsylvania House Reps. Kathy L. Rapp and David Zimmerman — both election deniers — alleged the state constitution requires absentee voters to return their ballots to their local precinct or polling location instead of their county boards of elections.
Over half of all voting and election lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania so far this cycle deal with mail-in voting. Sign up for our free newsletters so you never miss a new lawsuit or court decision that could impact who takes the White House this fall.
The justices issued an unsigned order today concluding that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court — the venue where the case was originally filed — lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the state Supreme Court voided the Commonwealth Court’s Aug. 23 decision rejecting the lawsuit and ordered it to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Without addressing the merits of the case, today’s ruling effectively upholds state law mandating that voters return their completed absentee ballots to their respective county board of elections office for canvassing. It also ensures that county boards of elections that currently offer drop boxes, drop off sites or satellite election offices may continue accepting absentee ballots at these authorized locations.
Absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are distinct categories under Pennsylvania law, but both types must be received and counted at county boards of elections per a bipartisan statute enacted in 2019, which Rapp originally supported.
After the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court rejected the legislators’ arguments last month, the duo appealed to the state’s highest court.
The defendants to the case, including Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt (R), expressed concerns about the prospect of forcing approximately 9,000 temporary polling places — which are usually situated in schools and other public buildings — to securely receive, store and count absentee ballots.
“What Petitioners ask for…would be a sea change in Pennsylvania elections” that “would create obvious security and custody concerns with no concomitant benefit,” Schmidt wrote in a court filing. The lawsuit also named Pennsylvania’s 67 county boards of elections as defendants, many of which similarly objected to the suit.
Today’s ruling clarified that in order for the Commonwealth Court to have original jurisdiction over a case, the commonwealth government — including the Pennsylvania Department of State or secretary of state — must be an “indispensable” (i.e., necessary) party to the suit.
According to the order, the GOP plaintiffs in this particular case acknowledged that their requested relief could be granted without having either Schmidt or the department of state as named defendants — meaning that neither was a necessary party to the case.
Just last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated and dismissed a lawsuit over undated and misdated mail-in ballots on similar jurisdictional grounds.