Northampton County's Elections Comm'n has been sued by Dave McCormick as well as state and national Republicans over the Comm'n's decisions to count 22 provisional ballots missing the statutorily required signature of the voter as well as 73 provisional ballots that failed to include the required signature of the judge of elections and minority inspector. (You can read the Petition for Review below)
Provisional ballots are paper ballots cast at the precinct on election day. They are used when a voter's eligibility to vote is questionable and also when a voter decides to spoil a previously requested mail-in ballot so he or she can vote in person. The voter's eligibility is determined during the canvass that follows voting on election day.
In what is technically called a statutory appeal, McCormick argues that the Elections Code unambiguously requires that affidavits to provisional ballots "shall" be signed by the elector, judge of elections and minority inspector. This is mandatory, not precatory.
In addition to violating the plain language of the Elections Code, Republicans argue that the Elections Comm'n violated the Equal Protection Clause in both the state and federal constitution. This is because some counties have followed the law, resulting in varying standards from county to county about what exactly is a valid vote.
President Judge Craig Dally has scheduled a hearing on the statutory appeal for Thursday, November 21, 11 am, Courtroom 5.
In a related matter, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday ruled 4-3 to direct county boards of election that undated and/or unsigned mail-in ballots must be rejected. This will be the third time the Supreme Court has made this decision in this election cycle. Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, agrees with this decision. He believes that ignoring the plain language of the Elections Code undermines public confidence in our election system.
Justice David Wecht, another Democrat, sided with the majority. Quoting Justice Felix Frankfurter, he reasons that [i]f one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny. . . . The greater the power that defies law the less tolerant can this Court be of defiance."
No comments:
Post a Comment