As the 2024 presidential election looms, with Pennsylvania set to play a crucial role, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania have approached the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge a ruling from Pennsylvania’s highest court. The ruling mandates that election boards count provisional ballots cast by voters whose mail-in ballots were deemed invalid. This last-minute legal maneuvering underscores the contentious nature of voting regulations and the potential impact on the upcoming election.
The Republicans argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has inappropriately altered the state’s mail voting procedures, thereby infringing upon the U.S. Constitution by encroaching on the legislature’s authority to regulate federal elections. The timing of their request—just days before the election—highlights the state’s significance, as polls indicate a tight race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. The RNC contends that the decision could affect a significant number of votes and possibly sway the presidential election result, although experts have suggested the number of ballots in question might be minimal.
Under Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting regulations, ballots must be enclosed in two separate envelopes for voter anonymity. Voters notified of a procedural error, such as a missing secrecy envelope, have the option to cast a provisional ballot in person. The issue arose when two voters, whose provisional ballots were not counted during the state primaries, successfully argued in state court for their ballots to be included in the tally. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision asserted that provisional ballots should be counted if the original mail-in ballots are not considered, prompting Republican backlash.
The legal representation for the RNC includes John Gore, a former acting head of the civil rights division in the Department of Justice under the Trump administration. They are seeking to halt the ruling to pursue a full review by the Supreme Court. Citing Moore v. Harper, the RNC underscores the Supreme Court’s stance that, although state legislatures have authority over federal election regulations, judicial review by state courts remains valid, albeit limited. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that while federal courts can oversee state court interpretations, they should not default to overturning state laws without cause.
The Republican parties further claim that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violates the Purcell Principle, which advises against altering election rules close to an election. Should the Supreme Court decline to suspend the state ruling, Republicans suggest an alternative path, as seen in a previous case concerning mail-in ballots received post-election day in 2020, where Justice Samuel Alito directed such ballots to be segregated and counted separately if included.
The Supreme Court is expected to respond promptly to the request, with a filing deadline imposed by Justice Alito and initial reactions from the involved parties to be submitted by Wednesday at 4 p.m. For more detailed reporting, readers can refer to the original article on SCOTUSblog.