On November 1, 2024, the Supreme Court denied a request from Republican officials to prevent the counting of provisional ballots in Pennsylvania. These provisional ballots are cast by voters whose mail-in ballots have been rejected due to technical issues. This ruling comes on the heels of a recent Supreme Court decision that allowed a GOP-supported voter roll purge in Virginia ahead of Election Day.
Background of the Case
In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to uphold a lower court’s decision that mandates the counting of provisional ballots. This ruling emphasizes the importance of provisional ballots as a safeguard to ensure that all citizens have access to their right to vote. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated, “Provisional ballots exist as a failsafe to preserve access to the right to vote,” highlighting that these ballots can only be counted if no other ballots from the same voter are counted.
The court also asserted that the Election Code was crafted to facilitate voting, not to create obstacles for voters. With Pennsylvania being a pivotal swing state, the stakes are particularly high; Joe Biden’s 2020 victory was decided by around 80,000 votes, while Donald Trump won the state in 2016 by approximately 44,000 votes. The upcoming 2024 election, featuring Trump against Kamala Harris, is anticipated to be closely contested.
The Supreme Court’s Order
The Supreme Court’s action was requested by Republicans who argued that the ruling could have significant implications, potentially affecting tens of thousands of votes in a state crucial for both the U.S. Senate and the presidential race. The GOP sought to either block the counting of these provisional ballots or at least keep them separate from the official tally for later review.
Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, acknowledged the significance of the issue but emphasized that pausing the Pennsylvania court’s ruling would not impose any binding obligations on state officials managing the election. Alito pointed out that the case stemmed from just two voters from a completed primary election, which complicated the ability of the Supreme Court to mandate actions from other election boards across the state.
Implications for Election Law
While this case is notable in its own right, it also raises broader questions about the role of courts in elections, especially as they relate to state legislatures and the U.S. Supreme Court. An opposition brief from the two voters involved in the case argued that the Republican National Committee (RNC) was attempting to change state voting laws just before an election, which could drastically disrupt the election process and potentially alter the outcome.
