In a decision that undoubtedly will make its way to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, Lehigh County Judge Edward Reibman has ruled that 261 undated and misdated mail-in ballots must be counted in the final tally of November 2's Lehigh County election. You can read his 18-page Opinion below. At the moment, Republican David Ritter leads Democrat Zac Cohen by 74 votes in a contest for Lehigh County judge. Since these ballots are largely Democratic, they could affect that and other races.
At issue are 257 mail-in ballots with no date on the return envelope, along with 4 ballots in which the date is on the wrong line.
After brushing aside some procedural concerns, Reibman pointed out the statutory language mandating that a mail-in voter "shall" sign and date the declaration on the outer envelope. Distilling his 18-pages to one sentence, Reibman concludes that "shall" means "should" for a minor irregularity like a date, so long as the ballots are received timely.
I agree with Judge Reibman's interpretation of the law, but he will almost certainly be reversed. Five Supreme Court justices have already signaled that "shall" means "shall."
18 comments:
"Five Supreme Court justices have already signaled that "shall" means "shall.""
How quaintly old-fashioned.
Seems to me, the judge is deciding on his own how many days late is acceptable. Is he saying 3 days, 5, or 25 days late? This decision can only serve to continue controversy over other election results. Maybe, time to change the word to ‘must.’
Careful reading of the opinion will reveal that none of the ballots in question were late. All were received within the lawful window for returning mail-in ballots. The problem is that some voters forgot to put the date on the envelope. Both the US and PA constitutions provide that voting is a fundamental right, which should only be infringed (i.e. not counted) for really good reasons. The court has found that secrecy of the ballot and accuracy of the count are good reasons, but that the date requirement does not make any difference and can be dispensed with. I would suggest to my Republican friends who feel that "shall should always mean shall" should consider the possibility of a future imposition of a regulation on one of the rights that they favor, such as those relating to the second amendment.
This is why with certain and specific things the rules need to be clear, quantifiable, directed, and blank & white so that there can be no interpretations. It is like the truth. The truth is open to interpretation. Facts are facts and lies are lies but what is in between is a whole load of crap waiting to explode in everyone's face.
The bullshit of leaving things open to interpretation for the convenience of some is the place where all the problems we are currently having in our democracy is starting.
Let's all start interpreting what we can interpret in our personal favor and watch our country turn into a bigger shit show then it has already become.
If the ballots are received by the deadline, it's obvious that they predate the deadline. Why disenfranchise anyone based on a technicality that serves no purpose?
Good old fashioned conspiracy is a brewing in Lehigh County. Does anyone remember the briefcase drop off the top ropes?
Why have laws or rules or.......
@3:26pm: Exactly and and excellent point injecting the wording of the 2nd amendment. How quaintly old-fashioned.
4:13: If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was Trump's White House Council, KellyAnne Conway who famously espoused that the Administration was using "alternative facts". And, that's what's wrong with so-called "Constitutionalists". "They" interpret the constitution in "their" microscopic schism of "black and white 'reality'".
What the heck purpose does the "date" serve? The only thing that matters is the date when the ballot is received. They make the mail-in procedure unnecessarily complicated.
Some smart guy - likely a lawyer - wrote shall into the law. It's there for a reason. By third grade most of us have learned to distinguish shall from should. Making law from the Lehigh County bench is not how it works. It's not how any of this works.
Shall is a clear mandate in the English language. So those who support the 2nd Amendment have nothing to fear. Unless partisan judges like Reibman try to water down the framers' intent
Replying to Anon 4:16pm and Anon 11:49....
The law states the ballot must be signed and dated by the voter...so if you do not like the law, then it is up to the Legislature to change it...not for a Judge to decide what it should be...
and for the record, I agree having to date it is stupid...as long as it is received by the deadline date, that is all that should matter.
Of course, that raises a separate issue...what to do about those ballots that are mailed in and arrive late....you could argue that having the voter date it, shows their intent to have it received before the deadline, but as the Judge pointed out...an person can put any date they want on it
The mail in ballot system should return to the pre-pandemic absentee requirements. Many of the people using the expanded mail in ballot are just being lazy. They go out for any other reason for their pleasure. They can go to a polling place and do their duty also.
Dating the ballot does seem a bit redundant, when what truly matters is when the ballot is delivered to the county.
Is it meant to sniff out fraud or coercion? I guess the only real point it serves is as a back up in the event that somehow/someway the county loses track of when certain ballots came in?
Maybe for future purposes, have the required fields highlighted, bolded and in larger fonts to make them less likely to be overlooked.
It does not say "must", it says "shall". I'm guessing grammar isn't your strength. And, your second paragraph actually confirms the judges ruling...if I dated it September 1, but it arrives December 1, shouldn't it count? Why can't I blame the post office for not getting it on on time. Oh, now I know why Trump appointed Dejoy(?) as the Post Master General.
It's not the judge's job to determine the reason or purpose for a data field; only to determine if the rule was met. It was not. Thus, they should not count.
Judge Reibman’s order (which the judge stayed pending appeal) now has been before Commonwealth Court on appeal for 30 days without decision. Though the term of office for those elected judge on Nov. 2 begins on Monday, neither candidate will take office then, and who knows when. Justice delayed….
Post a Comment