The Supreme Court rejected a Republican challenge to Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot rules, allowing provisional ballots to be counted when voters make technical errors on their mail-in submissions.

At a Glance

• The Supreme Court declined to hear a Republican challenge regarding provisional ballots in Pennsylvania when mail-in ballots are rejected for technical errors
• Republicans argued the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling undermined the legislature’s constitutional authority to set election rules
• The case involved Butler County voters whose provisional ballots were counted after their mail-in ballots were rejected for lacking secrecy envelopes
• Pennsylvania is a crucial battleground state that could significantly impact the 2024 presidential election
• The Supreme Court’s decision was accidentally released early due to a software glitch

Court Rejects Republican Appeal in Battleground State

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a Republican challenge to Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting procedures, effectively allowing voters whose mail-in ballots are rejected for technical reasons to cast provisional ballots instead. The challenge was brought by the Republican National Committee, Pennsylvania’s state GOP, and Butler County’s Republican-majority election board after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that provisional ballots must be counted when mail-in ballots are voided due to issues like missing secrecy envelopes. This decision could have significant implications for the upcoming presidential election in Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state won by Donald Trump in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

The specific case involved two Butler County voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected for lacking required secrecy envelopes. When they later cast provisional ballots on Election Day, Republicans argued these should not be counted. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that provisional ballots must be counted in such situations to ensure voters’ rights are protected. Republicans contended this judicial interpretation undermined the state legislature’s constitutional authority to establish election rules, pointing to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions that give state legislatures power over federal elections.

Inbox: Gov. Josh Shapiro has issued a lengthy statement on today's mail-in ballot dating court decision. "Any insinuation that our laws can be ignored or do not matter is irresponsible and does damage to faith in our electoral process…" https://t.co/PVj4P9isD7 pic.twitter.com/gq1PjlTTAn

— Stephen Caruso (@StephenJ_Caruso) November 19, 2024

Constitutional Questions and Previous Rulings

The Republican appeal followed a significant 2023 Supreme Court ruling that established when justices can review state court decisions that allegedly undermine state legislatures’ power to set election rules. While that ruling rejected a broad theory that would have completely removed state courts from regulating federal elections, it did not establish a clear legal test for determining when state courts overstep their boundaries. Republicans argued the Pennsylvania case provided an opportunity to clarify these standards, but the Supreme Court declined to take up the matter.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed this particular dispute. Previously, the court rejected an emergency bid by Republicans to block the counting of these provisional ballots before the November 2024 presidential election. Democrats had urged the Supreme Court not to intervene, arguing that Pennsylvania’s top court correctly interpreted state law to protect voters’ rights when technical errors occur with mail-in ballots. The court’s decision to stay out of the dispute effectively maintains the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation.

Early Release and Electoral Implications

In an unusual development, the Supreme Court’s decision was released earlier than scheduled due to a software glitch. Court spokesperson Patricia McCabe acknowledged the error, similar to previous accidental disclosures in sensitive cases. The early release added an unexpected wrinkle to a case already fraught with political significance as both parties prepare for what could be another closely contested presidential election in Pennsylvania, where mail-in voting procedures have become increasingly contentious since their expansion in 2019.

Provisional ballots are designed as a safeguard to ensure voters are not excluded from the electoral process when their eligibility is uncertain. They are counted only after election officials confirm voter eligibility and verify that no other ballot from that voter has been counted. Democrats have championed these safeguards as protecting voting rights, while Republicans have raised concerns about election integrity and the proper role of state courts in interpreting election laws established by legislatures.