In a recent 4-3 order, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned a Commonwealth Court decision that would have required counties in the battleground state to count mail-in ballots with missing or incorrect handwritten dates on their outer return envelopes. This ruling has raised concerns about potential disenfranchisement in the upcoming November elections.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision was based on the lack of jurisdiction by the Commonwealth Court, as the plaintiffs failed to name all 67 Pennsylvania counties as defendants in the lawsuit. The suit only included Philadelphia and Allegheny counties. This ruling might put thousands of voters at risk of being disenfranchised.

This development adds further uncertainty to the upcoming election in Pennsylvania, a state that holds significant importance in determining the outcome of the presidential election. Three justices dissented, emphasizing the urgency of a timely and definitive ruling on the constitutional question at hand, as it directly impacts the counting of ballots in the general election.

The order comes after a Commonwealth Court decision on August 30th, which determined that the strict enforcement of Pennsylvania's handwritten date requirement is in violation of the fundamental right to vote, as guaranteed by the state constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.

Several nonprofit groups, led by the Black Political Empowerment Project (BPEP), filed a lawsuit in May, arguing against the "meaningless" requirement of handwritten dates on mail-in ballots. They stated that counties do not rely on these dates to determine a voter's eligibility or the timeliness of their ballot. Instead, election officials rely on the time of receipt and scanning of the ballot into Pennsylvania's mail-ballot tracking system.

Support for this argument came from Pennsylvania election officials and the Democratic National Committee, who provided evidence that the enforcement of the handwritten date requirement led to the disqualification of over 10,000 mail-in ballots during the 2022 midterm elections. Moreover, the data showed that these disqualified ballots disproportionately affected Democratic and elderly voters, who have a higher tendency to vote by mail.

County election officials raised concerns about the potential disenfranchisement of thousands of Pennsylvania voters and the resulting electoral chaos right before the 2024 General Election, if the date requirement were to be strictly enforced.

Following the Commonwealth Court's ruling in favor of BPEP, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Republican Party of Pennsylvania appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They argued that the date requirement serves to prevent fraud and preserve the integrity of elections, highlighting the authority of the Pennsylvania Legislature over election matters. The Republicans also claimed that, if the ruling were to stand, the entire universal mail-in voting law, Act 77, would need to be invalidated due to a nonseverability provision within it.

However, the opposing parties disagree, asserting that invalidating the enforcement of the date requirement does not require the wholesale invalidation of Act 77, as argued by the Republicans.

This is not the first time that the issue of handwritten dates on mail-in ballots has reached Pennsylvania's highest court. Prior to the 2022 midterm elections, the court determined that counties must disqualify undated or incorrectly dated mail-in ballots. The justices were evenly split on whether the failure to count such ballots violates the Materiality Provision of the federal Civil Rights Act.

Meanwhile, federal courts are currently examining whether the rejection of mail-in ballots based solely on date issues violates the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge previously ruled against such rejections, but the decision was later overturned by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As of now, it remains unclear whether these federal cases will be resolved before the upcoming election.

Mimi McKenzie, legal director of the Public Interest Law Center, expressed disappointment with the procedural ruling, emphasizing the importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote for eligible voters.

The fight for Pennsylvania voters continues, but it remains to be seen how this decision will ultimately impact the November elections and the state's electoral landscape.