U.S. Supreme Court Rules Mailed-In Ballots Without a Postmark Date Can NOT Be Counted.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As for mail in ballots being found it is one of the reasons a person has to include the date on their forms.

That's not going to prevent fraud...with even a little thought and prep, easy peasy. I've worked vote counts, and keeping track of chain of custody can be tough, if you're not very careful. A moment, or twelve, of inattention, and hey presto, dated and counted--whether they should have been or not.

Also Elections should last 1 day. Stopping the vote counting because more ballots were found is a scam. Especially when voters are illegally given an extra 3-15 days after the day of the election.

Yes, they should be only one day, but I see no real issue with it being a day or two more, with anything turning up after that, discarded, period. Same with absentee ballots, they're either in by such and such a date, or they're invalid and discarded.

No mysterious boxes of ballots suddenly turning up in a close run state, county or city. By this date, or not valid.

Accusations of fraud must be investigated. Not sure by who, given the state of the FBI. Maybe the Secret Service?

Priority should be given to Chain Of Custody, at all times. The slightest break, discarded--no ambiguity allowed.

Elections are far too important to mess about with.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and the ruling violated PA state law and the PA constitution (no excuse vote by mail).

That wasn't the issue before the 3rd Circuit Court nor SCOTUS.

The precedent was just set by Scotus. A state must follow its election laws and only the State Legislature can make changes.

That's not what the Supreme Court ruled!

SCOTUS vacated the lower court's decision. They did not overrule the 3rd Circuit Court's decision. They ruled the case "MOOT". They did that for the purpose of making sure that the lower court ruling could not be used as precedent, as requested by the plaintiff.

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

www.supremecourt.gov...

The high court's action means that the 3rd Circuit ruling cannot be used as a precedent in the three states covered by this regional federal appellate court - Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware - to allow the counting of ballots with minor flaws such as the voter failing to fill in the date.

www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: seagull
That's not going to prevent fraud...with even a little thought and prep, easy peasy. I've worked vote counts, and keeping track of chain of custody can be tough, if you're not very careful. A moment, or twelve, of inattention, and hey presto, dated and counted--whether they should have been or not.

I agree but as I said in another post a person voting by mail who fills out the forms correctly is assumed to be real and not fraud. Proving fraud is the governments burden to prove.

originally posted by: seagull
Yes, they should be only one day, but I see no real issue with it being a day or two more, with anything turning up after that, discarded, period. Same with absentee ballots, they're either in by such and such a date, or they're invalid and discarded.

No mysterious boxes of ballots suddenly turning up in a close run state, county or city. By this date, or not valid.

Accusations of fraud must be investigated. Not sure by who, given the state of the FBI. Maybe the Secret Service?

Priority should be given to Chain Of Custody, at all times. The slightest break, discarded--no ambiguity allowed.

Elections are far too important to mess about with.

100% agree.

Photo ID should be required. If I have to give my ID and fill out forms to prove who I am in order to buy a gun, the same standard should apply to voting.

Biomatric security
Enforcing state / federal laws evenly
The US Supreme Court should not be allowed to not hear a case when it deals with 2 states. Since the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction, they should be required to hear a case. Even if after 1 day Scotus says you dont have standing, case dismissed. None of the no comment / 1 sentence bs.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The ruling by the 3rd was reversed by Scotus and with the upcoming legislature case is where we find out that Judicial and Executive branches cannot get involved in gerrymandering or changing election laws. By reversing the 3rd circuit and State Supreme Court ruling is an indication of where this is going imo.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The ruling by the 3rd was reversed by Scotus

It wasn't reversed or overruled. It was vacated. It means that the 3rd Circuit Court's decision is "moot" and can't be used as precedent. It means there needs to be a "do over".

If SCOTUS had reversed/overruled the 3rd Circuit Court's decision, it would have, in effect, overruled the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act is Federal, and it trumps Pennsylvania's Constitution, even though Pennsylvania's Constitution does not mandate the revocation the voting rights of eligible voters who write the wrong date or forget to write a date.

By reversing the 3rd circuit and State Supreme Court ruling is an indication of where this is going imo.

Again, the case is "moot", not reversed. However, I have no doubt that this court intends to continue to decimate the Voting Rights Act.

...the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Xiulu Ruan v. United States

Right. That is the "writ of certiorari" being granted.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U. S.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Xiulu Ruan v. United States, 597 U. S.

The case itself is moot, and Ritter lost his election. I have no idea what Siegel v. Fitzgerald or Xiulu Ruan v. United States has to do with counting ballots with missing dates, absentee ballots or even elections at all!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
It wasn't reversed or overruled. It was vacated. It means that the 3rd Circuit Court's decision is "moot" and can't be used as precedent. It means there needs to be a "do over".

Yeah it was reversed -
* - Supreme Court reverses lower court decision which allowed undated mail-in ballots to be counted in Pennsylvania
* - U.S. Supreme Court reverses ruling on counting undated mail-in ballots
* - US Supreme Court reverses Pennsylvania mail-in voting law decision
* - Supreme Court throws out lower court ruling that allowed undated ballots to be counted in Pennsylvania judicial race

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
If SCOTUS had reversed/overruled the 3rd Circuit Court's decision, it would have, in effect, overruled the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act is Federal, and it trumps Pennsylvania's Constitution, even though Pennsylvania's Constitution does not mandate the revocation the voting rights of eligible voters who write the wrong date or forget to write a date.

Yeah Scotus reverses the 3rd circuit ruling and its not a violation of the Voting Rights act. We just covered how only the state legislature is responsible for overseeing Federal elections.

Voting rights act... LOL, try again.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Again, the case is "moot", not reversed. However, I have no doubt that this court intends to continue to decimate the Voting Rights Act.

The supreme Court reversed the 3rd appeals circuit ruling and again, NO, its NOT a violation of the voting rights act. What it was was a violation of PA Constitution and PA election law.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Right. That is the "writ of certiorari" being granted.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U. S.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Xiulu Ruan v. United States, 597 U. S.

The case itself is moot, and Ritter lost his election. I have no idea what Siegel v. Fitzgerald or Xiulu Ruan v. United States has to do with counting ballots with missing dates, absentee ballots or even elections at all!

There was a reason I removed that part of my post since it has nothing to do with PA.

Hang in there, you might eventually figure it out.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't care how many times you cite the word "reversed", the word does not appear anywhere in their order. The word "vacate" does.

Yeah Scotus reverses the 3rd circuit ruling and its not a violation of the Voting Rights act. We just covered how only the state legislature is responsible for overseeing Federal elections.

Here's what we covered, Hon...

“No person acting under color of law shall . . . deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper related to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.”
§10101(a)(2)(B).

www.law.cornell.edu...#:~:text=No%20person%2C%20whether%20acting%20under%20color%20of%20law,purpose%20of%20selecting%20or%20 electing%20any%20such%20candidate.


Also we covered how state legislatures don't trump federal law.

If SCOTUS had reversed the lower court's ruling, saying that undated and misdated ballot can NOT be counted, which they didn't, they would be overruling the Voting Rights Act. But, they didn't overrule the Voting Rights Act. They vacated the ruling, that allowed those ballots to be counted, and instructed the 3rd Circuit Court to find the case "MOOT". That is not a reversal, no matter how many ways the right spins it. And, Ritter still lost the election.

There was a reason I removed that part of my post since it has nothing to do with PA.

Whatever dude, it was there when I wrote the reply. So, I responded.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I don't care how many times you cite the word "reversed", the word does not appear anywhere in their order. The word "vacate" does.

You did the exact same with the edited Trump GA phone call so the same logic applies to you.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Here's what we covered, Hon...

“No person acting under color of law shall . . . deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper related to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.”
§10101(a)(2)(B).

www.law.cornell.edu...#:~:text=No%20person%2C%20whether%20acting%20under%20color%20of%20law,purpose%20of%20selecting%20or%20 electing%20any%20such%20candidate.

Yeah its not a violation of the voting rights act. Also color of law applies to law enforcement. The other Federal laws are 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983 - Deprivation of a persons rights by a person acting under color of law.

Also you conveniently ignored or didnt understand the sentence "if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election". Under PA election law the inner / outer envelope is required to be filled out completely and accurately. As has been said before if people in PA want to make changes to their election law then they are free to do so. However until that happens a person failing to comply with the law by filling out the forms / envelopes correctly means their vote is invalid.

Under PA election law, failing to fill out the forms/envelopes correctly means the person is not qualified to vote / have their vote counted. Even the SecStates website says this, and does so in several places for mail in voting. It goes back to that old affidavit explanation.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Also we covered how state legislatures don't trump federal law.

Yup that pesky supremacy clause thing. Make sure you let the PA SecState know since she apparently failed government 101 and has never read the Constitution. HOWEVER as has been pointed out the Constitution places the State Legislature in charge for federal elections. Since the Constitution spells that out its not a violation of the Supremacy clause or the VRA. PA state law / PA Constitution sets the rules for voting in Federal elections. You dont follow the rules your vote is not accepted. If it were a voting rights issue Scotus would have said so instead of reversing the 3rd circuit and PA Supreme Court rulings.

Its like impeachment. Judges argued that they were denied due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. However since the Constitution is specific on who can be impeached and by whom, their is no due process violation, and Scotus has said this in numerous impeachment situations.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
If SCOTUS had reversed the lower court's ruling, saying that undated and misdated ballot can NOT be counted, which they didn't, they would be overruling the Voting Rights Act. But, they didn't overrule the Voting Rights Act. They vacated the ruling, that allowed those ballots to be counted, and instructed the 3rd Circuit Court to find the case "MOOT". That is not a reversal, no matter how many ways the right spins it. And, Ritter still lost the election.

again no, its not a violation of the voting rights act. It is, however, a violation of PA election law, the PA Constitution and the Federal Constitution. The illegality of the 3rd circuit ruling and the PA Supreme Court ruling was entities legislating other than the PA legislature and those entities can NOT legislate. Only the legislature can. As I said legislating from the bench is not legal.

Yup scotus didnt bother to overturn Ritters loss (yet), instead focusing on the much larger issue - State legislature authority and how the Executive Branch and Judicial branch were trying to pull an end run around the legislature.The issue was then compounded by the 3rd circuit's stupidity. The 3rd circuit ruling was reversed by Scotus.

Also -

2-30 RITTER, DAVID V. MIGLIORI, LINDA, ET AL.
The motion of Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives, Bryan Cutler, et al. for leave to file a brief
as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Doctor Oz for Senate,
et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment
is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit with instructions to dismiss
the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340
U. S. 36 (1950). Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson would
deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

The dismissal dealt only with Ritters law suit. It was vacated / invalidated / overturned / reversed / ordered moot because the ruling by the 3rd Circuit was already being cited and used in other states in the 3rd circuit. Like I said the 3rd circuit opened a can of worms by not reading PA election laws and instead decided to "legislate from the bench".

The PA Supreme Court and the 3rd circuit, in their rulings, said nothing about the voting rights act. Since they never used it, you should stop trying to interject it into your arguments. If they considered it a violation of the VRA they would have said as much. Instead they decided to legislate from the bench and make # up as they went along.

If you or a voter doesnt like a particular law the correct course of action would be to change the law to incorporate different standards. The Executive and Judicial branches have no horse in that race.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You did the exact same with the edited Trump GA phone call so the same logic applies to you.

Wrong!

Here's the totality of the ruling.

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot

.

First of all,you're the one doing the editing. The SCOTUS order says "vacated". Nowhere does it say invalidated / overturned / reversed . That's all you, editing the Court's order to fit your narrative.

Secondly, I never once referred to the Washington Post or the "edited" phone call. I linked the whole call, which says everything.

The PA Supreme Court and the 3rd circuit, in their rulings, said nothing about the voting rights act. Since they never used it, you should stop trying to interject it into your arguments.

Wrong! It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you are way over your head.

We hold that private plaintiffs have a private right of action to enforce § 10101 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and further hold that the dating provisions contained in 25 Pa. Cons. Stat.§§3146.6(a) and 3150.16 are immaterial to a voter’s qualifications and eligibility under § 10101(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, we will remand to the District Court and direct that Court to enter an order that the undated ballots be counted

law.justia.com...

The 3rd Circuit had ruled that invalidating the undated ballots would violate a provision of the Civil Rights Act aimed at ensuring that minor ballot errors do not deny someone the right to vote. Although Pennsylvania law currently requires the entry of a date on the outer envelope, the 3rd Circuit found the requirement “immaterial” to determining their qualifications as voters.

electionlawblog.org...

Again, from the Voting Rights Act:

“No person acting under color of law shall . . . deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper related to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.”
§ 10101(a)(2)(B)

So here's the deal. The PA Secretary of State agrees with me and says that the SCOTUS ruling merely vacates the lower court's ruling, ordering the ruling "MOOT", not illicit. There is no precedent set, and PA will continue to count the votes of citizens whose envelopes are misdated, or the date is omitted. The RNC filed suit on Friday. So, this isn't over.

SCOTUS is going to have actually rule that, Title 52; § 10101(a)(2)(B), the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. It can't be done by declaring a case "MOOT" and vacating a lower court's ruling.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Look kids, big Ben, parliament....

Ive explained everything to you. You refuse to learn and instead substitute fact for your opinion. I have provided you with the links to educate yourself and you refuse to learn. Ive proven the call Trump made was edited by Washington Compost and yet you refuse to believe it because of your sever TDS.

You are now doing the same denial for the ruling and reversal in PA...

I am not going into your circular argument. The Supreme Court overturned / reversed / overruled the PA Supreme Court ruling and the 3rd appeals circuit ruling.

The voting rights act was not violated in this case. PA Election law and the PA State Constitution were, along with the Federal Constitution.

The only person that is wrong would be you and we know this by you trying to interject the VRA into the case when it was never an issue raised by the PA Supreme Court nor the 3rd Circuit. Learn the law and the Constitution then try making an argument based in fact.

The PA acting SecState is wrong as the US Supreme Court stated in their reversal of the 3rd circuit. Ironic you try and interject the Supremacy Clause while completely ignoring the fact the PA SecState is ignoring a US Supreme Court ruling, like her predecessor did.

Its NOT optional and it doesnt help your case when you try to use the acting SecStates flawed logic to claim your right. Also using your logic the US Supreme Court agrees with me. And again the section of the VRA you keep trying to cite was pointed out to you that your ignoring a key phrase that deals with verified voters. Since it doesn't help your grasp at straws you once again ignore it. Ive also explained to you what acting under the color of law is and who it applies to and you ignored it. Maybe you should read the entire section of the VRA to educate yourself on what it is they are referring to.

Also the VRA was not used by Scotus because it doesnt apply, as I pointed out to you already that you constantly ignore, hence their reversal of the 3rd circuit.

Have fun looking at Big Ben and Parliament over and over.. When Scotus deals with the Legislature issue I look forward to your meltdown and grasping at straws coupled with your denial. When that happens could you please lecture us again on the Supremacy Clause and try to explain why it doesnt apply.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ive explained everything to you. You refuse to learn and instead substitute fact for your opinion. I have provided you with the links to educate yourself and you refuse to learn. Ive proven the call Trump made was edited by Washington Compost and yet you refuse to believe it because of your sever TDS.

LOL ...You've got it bad! Trump is under investigation for interfering in the presidential election in Georgia. You can be sure that phone call is an important facet of the case. But, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, other than you're accusing the PA SOS of the same thing that Trump is being accused of in Georgia.

I am not going into your circular argument. The Supreme Court overturned / reversed / overruled the PA Supreme Court ruling and the 3rd appeals circuit ruling.

Not according to The Supreme Court's order.

The voting rights act was not violated in this case. PA Election law and the PA State Constitution were, along with the Federal Constitution.

You said the Voting RIghts Act wasn't mentioned in the 3rd Circuit Court's ruling. It was all about their ruling. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

ETA:
Just 4 months ago, SCOTUS ruled that Pennsylvania COULD count undated ballots:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Thursday that election officials in Pennsylvania may count mailed ballots accompanied by voters’ declarations that were signed but not dated. The court’s order came in a tight race for a seat on a state court, but it is likely to affect other contests in the state as well.

www.nytimes.com...

Supreme Court Allows Undated Ballots in Pennsylvania Election

Don't even try to tell me that the court overruled its own decision, just 4 months later.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
LOL ...You've got it bad! Trump is under investigation for interfering in the presidential election in Georgia. You can be sure that phone call is an important facet of the case. But, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, other than you're accusing the PA SOS of the same thing that Trump is being accused of in Georgia.

The only person here with TDS would be you and Democrats.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Not according to The Supreme Court's order.

ordering the 3rd circuit to dismiss the case and stopping the PA Supreme Court... It was in relation to Ritters lawsuit, which was dismissed as Moot. It doesnt affect Scotus order that mail in ballots not correctly filled out can NOT be counted. You are confusing the 2, which would explain your problem.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
You said the Voting RIghts Act wasn't mentioned in the 3rd Circuit Court's ruling. It was all about their ruling. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

and Scotus didnt buy it because it did not violate the VRA. The only ones wrong here are the PA Supreme Court and the 3rd Circuit. Apparently you, the PA Supreme Court and the 3rd circuit are incapable of reading and understanding the VRA.


The section of the VRA you keep bringing up is clearly defined in the VRA and refers to a person acting under the color of law (law Enforcement) preventing a person of color from voting based solely on race. Hence the reason it is the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A person who doesnt fill out the ballots / envelopes as required do not lose their vote based on the voters race. They lose their vote because of PA election law requiring certain information be included to make the vote legal and the VRA and US code say as much also.

again, from your source -

(B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election; or

PA State election law REQUIRES info on the ballot and the envelopes to be completely filled out, otherwise their vote does not count.This is explained on the website for voting as well as instruction included with the ballots. Failing to fill out the required sections disqualifies a person from voting and/or having their vote counted as legal, meeting the requirement set forth in the VRA as well as 52 USC 10101.

Ill repeat the part you ignore -

qualified under State law to vote in such election

So your supremacy clause argument is also invalid as it specifically references State Law as the deciding factor.

From your source -

“State law requires voters to sign and date the outside mailing envelope when they return their mail ballots, and state courts have held that the requirement means undated ballots must be rejected. But throwing out those votes violates the federal Civil Rights Act, the ACLU argued, because the date isn’t actually used in determining the legitimacy of a vote.

So you, the 3rd circuit and the PA Supreme Court and the UCLA are wrong in that PA's requirements for mail in voting does NOT violate the VRA.

As I have said before that you continue to ignore. If you dont like PA law then change the law via the state legislature. It is their responsibility to listen to its citizens. If they dont then the recourse would be to vote them out of office and elect officials with a like mind on the topic.

The days of legislating from the bench, or from the Governors / SecStates desk, are over with.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It doesnt affect Scotus order that mail in ballots not correctly filled out can NOT be counted.

WRONG!

That's NOT what they said. In fact, they said exactly the opposite in June of this year. In June SCOTUS said that Pennsylvania CAN count signed buy undated ballots.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Thursday that election officials in Pennsylvania may count mailed ballots accompanied by voters’ declarations that were signed but not dated. The court’s order came in a tight race for a seat on a state court, but it is likely to affect other contests in the state as well.

PA State election law REQUIRES info on the ballot and the envelopes to be completely filled out, otherwise their vote does not count.

That's a violation of the Voting Rights Act, as the 3rd Circuit Court ruled, and SCOTUS uphelp in June of this year, just 4 months ago.

You're wrong. AGAIN. You've been shown the evidence over and over again. SCOTUS did not EVER rule that the PA SOS could not count undated ballots. In fact they ruled the exact opposite.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

source link please.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
WRONG!

That's NOT what they said. In fact, they said exactly the opposite in June of this year. In June SCOTUS said that Pennsylvania CAN count signed buy undated ballots.

That's a violation of the Voting Rights Act, as the 3rd Circuit Court ruled, and SCOTUS uphelp in June of this year, just 4 months ago.

You're wrong. AGAIN. You've been shown the evidence over and over again. SCOTUS did not EVER rule that the PA SOS could not count undated ballots. In fact they ruled the exact opposite.

The only person wrong here is you because you read only what you agree with and ignore the rest. For instance the 3rd circuit ruling from June. Scotus allowed their ruling to temporarily stand.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Upset Third Circuit “Materiality” Ruling for Now
Posted on June 9, 2022 by Richard Winger

On June 9, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, decided to accept for the time being the Third Circuit ruling that allows postal ballots to be counted, even if the voter forgot to add the date next to his or her signature. In Pennsylvania, all postal ballots are date-stamped when received by the election administration office. Thus, the Third Circuit felt the failure of the voter to add a date didn’t really matter.

The Third Circuit had depended on the “materiality” provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, which says, in essence, that no one should be deprived of the vote just because of a paperwork error that doesn’t make any practical difference.

Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch were in the minority, and Justice Alito wrote for the three of them. See his reasoning here. He wants to interpret the “materiality” clause in a very narrow manner. It is possible the Court will accept the case, Ritter v Migliori, 21A772, in the near future, if the 2021 candidate who lost in the Third Circuit wants to bother.

The “materiality” clause has been used in the past to strike down very strict rules for petitions, so it is helpful to ballot access if interpreted broadly.

So the only person wrong here is you. Next time read beyond only what you want to see.

Also Scotus, when they took the case and got involved with the 3rd circuit mess, most recent order was they can NOT accept mail in ballots that are missing certain info. The part you cited above, and probably why you didnt include the link, is because it was from the ruling in June.

Pennsylvania to Ignore Supreme Court’s Recent Order Regarding Illegal Mail-in Ballots

The Supreme Court tossed out a lower court ruling that had permitted undated mail-in ballots to be counted against the law in Pennsylvania — but the Commonwealth’s secretary of state has other ideas. Immediately after the court’s decision was made public, Pennsylvania’s Acting Secretary of State Leigh M. Chapman released a statement saying the court’s ruling does not affect the decision of the 3rd Circuit “in any way.”

“Today’s order from the U.S. Supreme Court vacating the Third Circuit’s decision on mootness grounds was not based on the merits of the issue and does not affect the prior decision of Commonwealth Court in any way,” Chapman wrote. “It provides no justification for counties to exclude ballots based on a minor omission, and we expect that counties will continue to comply with their obligation to count all legal votes.”

This directive by Chapman will only result in more chaos and confusion for voters, poll workers, and election clerks, plus likely inconsistencies between how different localities handle erroneous ballots. Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballots for this election cycle already contain wording that reads “today’s date required” and clear instructions for voters to “sign and date” their ballots.

The Federalist:

This kind of blatant flouting of election law is nothing new in Pennsylvania. Back during the 2020 election, then-Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar issued guidance that did not comport with Pennsylvania’s election code.

As a result of Chapman’s statement, some of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties will follow her directive while others will follow state law and clear ballot instructions, meaning the inconsistencies and irregularities that plagued the 2020 election show no signs of stopping.

Since Scotus ruling, its clear PA election law does NOT violate the VRA. Although the SecState needs to be arrested and charged for thinking she can ignore a Scotus ruling.

So no, you would be wrong. Scotus ordered PA NOT to accept mail in ballots not completely filled out. The fact that 2 liberal scotus justices essentially agree with 3 conservative justices on the topic doesnt bode well for Democrats.

As reported by Fox News, Chapman stated:

“Every county is expected to include undated ballots in their official returns for the Nov. 8 election, consistent with the Department of State’s guidance. That guidance followed the most recent ruling of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court holding that both Pennsylvania and federal law prohibit excluding legal votes because the voter omitted an irrelevant date on the ballot return envelope.”

“Today’s order from the U.S. Supreme Court vacating the Third Circuit’s decision on mootness grounds was not based on the merits of the issue and does not affect the prior decision of Commonwealth Court in any way. It provides no justification for counties to exclude ballots based on a minor omission, and we expect that counties will continue to comply with their obligation to count all legal votes.”

In essence, the crux of Chapman’s argument appears to be that the Supreme Court’s opinion does not impact the decision rendered by the Pennsylvania state court(s) allowing undated ballots to be counted. Generally speaking, Supreme Court decisions are only binding on state courts if they involve the Constitution, constitutional issues, or federal law.

Here, while the issue, in part, involves the interpretation and/or applicability of Pennsylvania law, federal law is also possibly involved. As Democracy Docket recently noted, “Within the span of a week, a federal circuit court and a state appellate court both concluded that not counting undated mail-in ballots would violate the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Hence the reason Scotus is going to deal with the state legislature issue this term. Also even Chapman said the ruling by the 3rd circuit was vacated.

Additional resources -

Democracy Docket - Pennsylvania Lehigh County Undated Ballots - Migliori v. Lehigh County Board of Elections

a reply to: Xcathdra

Also Scotus, when they took the case and got involved with the 3rd circuit mess, most recent order was they can NOT accept mail in ballots that are missing certain info.

Now you're just lying. SCOTUS NEVER ruled that Pennsylvania can't accept mail in ballots with the wrong or missing dates.

You can't admit you don't know what you're talking about and were wrong, so now you're just doubling down and flat out lying.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

* - CNN OCT 11 2022 - Supreme Court throws out lower court ruling that allowed undated ballots to be counted in Pennsylvania judicial race

* - Fox News Oct 12 2022 - Pennsylvania to count undated ballots, election official says, despite US Supreme Court ruling

* - Reuters Oct 11 2022 - U.S. Supreme Court backs Republican in Pennsylvania ballots case

* - Philadelphia Inquirer Oct 14 2022 - Wolf administration insists undated mail ballots will be valid this November as counties proceed with caution - The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a federal ruling on undated ballots this week, but Pennsylvania’s top election official says state decisions allowing them to be counted still apply.

* - MSN Oct 11 2022 - Supreme Court rules in favor of GOP in Pennsylvania mail-ballot case

* - Raw Story - GOP asks Pa. Supreme Court to take immediate action to enforce ballot dating requirement

The key part you are ignoring is the fact PA Election Law requires the Ballots / Envelopes to contain required info. If the info is not present the ballots, under PA election law, are invalid.

So once again PA law needs to be changed, along with the PA constitution. ACT 77 made the changes, except to the PA Constitution. A lower court ruled ACT 77 as unconstitutional but the PA Supreme Court, along political lines, tossed the lower court ruling. The 3 justices that overturned the lower court ruling are all Democrats. The 2 dissenting justices are Republicans.

A Law is only worthy of the name when it restricts the government as well. In the case of PA they are using the Führerprinzip doctrine from NAZI Germany.

This principle can be most succinctly understood to mean that "the Führer's word is above all written law" and that governmental policies, decisions, and offices ought to work toward the realization of this end.

PA needs to unfu** themselves or the Supreme Court will... again.


Actually I know what I am talking about and have provided you with the info to verify it. As I pointed out you ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative, while intentionally using outdated info while trying to pass it off as current.

So you dont like PA election law. Your next step is to change it via the state legislature.

This is not a hard concept to understand (for most anyways).

a reply to: Xcathdra

One thing that may be overlooked here. Ballot drop boxes are illegal under Pennsylvania law. Absentee ballots must be sent through the US mail and be postmarked.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually I know what I am talking about and have provided you with the info to verify it.

No, you haven't. You've provided gish gallops, spin, gaslighting lies, insults and lots of personal bias and right wing rhetorical talking points.

Fact: 3rd Circuit Court ruled the law violates the Voting Rights Act.
Fact: SCOTUS upheld the Court's ruling in June.
Fact: Ritter lost his election and sued, petitioning SCOTUS to vacate the lower court ruling so as not to bind future courts with precedent.
Fact: SCOTUS ordered the 3rd Circuit Court to "vacate" its ruling and consider the question "moot".
Fact: Pennsylvania SOS vows not to violated the Voting Rights Act, and encourages counties to count undated ballots.
Fact: RNC files suit against Pennsylvania SOS over intention to count undated ballots.

This thread is based on a lie and is riddled lie after lie throughout.
The case was never about Postmarks.
SCOTUS did not rule that undated ballots can't be counted.
Pennsylvania's SOS didn't just decide to count the undated ballots set aside to that Ritter would lose to a Democrat.
Nothing achieved through this undated ballot battle will do anything to stem voter fraud.
The GOP and the Federalist Society and their extremist SCOTUS justices are intent on decimating the Voting Rights Act.