LogFAQs > #947388163

LordoftheMorons posted...

Also it sounds like ballots received by election day to me, so this decision is indeed ridiculous

I hate my life so I decided to read the decision.

Long story short, the PA Election Code + Supreme Court state that the outer mailing envelope for absentee ballots "shall" be "fill[ed] out, date[d] and sign[ed]" and that the board of election "shall examine the declaration on the envelope [...] [and be] satisfied that the declaration is sufficient."

Out of concern that minor errors on this might cause absentee ballots to be thrown out, the PA Dems asked the PA Supreme Court earlier in the year that should such a thing arise, that the board of electors notify the voter of the error and allow them to cure it. PA Supreme Court said no.

Apparently one of the board of elections decided to count these ballots regardless and that was the issue at dispute here. The court is saying they can't do that because the Election Code requires the envelope be dated and that the board of elections is required to make sure the envelope is dated for it to count

While this sounds good and all, the dissent raises the compelling point that there is precedent of the Pennsylvania courts ruling to count ballots even where they are in technical error over a "shall" wording. The example raised in the dissent is that the Election Code states that the voter shall fill in the ballot with blue or black ink but the courts have ruled that ballots marked with green or red ink should not be discarded.

Dissent makes the more compelling argument here (and notes that were the outer envelope declaration left blank or unsigned that the ballot should be set aside but that there is no compelling reason to set aside a ballot whose only error is that it is not dated.)

For the other stuff here: The ballots here were received on or before Election Day (and the Dissent even notes that the only compelling reason they can think of for requiring the date is to ensure it is received on time but that the board's own equipment timestamps them when they are processed so that can be used to ensure they didn't arrive late.)

tl;dr: Opinion of the court seems overly literal with a huge undercurrent of trying to pass the buck to the PA Supreme Court tying their hands here. Dissent seems to make more sense to me and points to precedent that I think makes the more compelling argument because it would appear to undercut the court's majority opinion's reliance on super strict literalism.

---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?