Supreme Court declines to hear GOP request to review Pa. provisional ballot ruling
The high court's rejection June 6 means county boards of elections must count provisional ballots cast by voters who find out their mail-in ballots have been rejected under the state Supreme Court's decision in October.
The case at issue, Faith Genser et al vs. the Butler County Board of Elections, stemmed from a lawsuit filed after the 2024 primary election by two Butler County voters. They claimed they were disenfranchised when the board refused to count provisional ballots the voters cast on Election Day, after learning their mail ballots were disqualified for missing dates.
Pa. politics: Erie County Democrats have slimmest voter registration edge in decades
The board of elections reasoned the Pennsylvania Election Code says provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in ballots are 'timely received' can't be counted, even if the voters' mail-in ballots are rejected.
In its 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court found the Elections Code requires county elections officials to count provisional ballots if no other ballot is attributable to the voter, and as long as there are no other issues that would disqualify their provisional ballot.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not explain its decision not to hear the appeal. Attorneys for the RNC and Republican Party of Pennsylvania did not respond to an email requesting comment.
'Republicans don't think every rightful vote should count. We disagree, and now, the Supreme Court has sided with us. Pennsylvanians deserve to have their say in every election ― full stop,' Democratic National Committee Chairperson Ken Martin said in a statement.
The case is one of many involving 'paperwork errors' on vote-by-mail-ballots, since absentee voting without an excuse became an option in 2019 with the passage of Act 77.
'Every election, thousands of Pennsylvania mail ballots are voided due to common technical mistakes made by voters,' Rich Ting, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said. 'Thanks to Faith Genser and Frank Matis fighting for their right to vote, all Pennsylvania voters who make those mistakes are guaranteed the right to vote by provisional ballot as a failsafe.'
The ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center with pro-bono counsel from Dechert LLP represented Genser and Matis in their lawsuit.
'The Supreme Court's determination not to hear this case means that Pennsylvanians who make a technical mistake with their mail-in ballots will have a way to fix the mistake instead of losing the opportunity to vote,' Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, said.
In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the GOP argued the state Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania Legislature's authority to set the 'times, places and manner' for congressional elections, leaning on a premise known as the 'independent state legislature theory.' That theory asserts that the U.S. Constitution reserves the authority to set the times, places and manner of elections exclusively for state legislatures.
In opposition, the DNC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, because the case falls outside the limited circumstances in which it can review the judgment of a state's highest court. Such appeals are allowed only when a federal law is in question, a state law is claimed to conflict with federal law or 'where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution.'
The June 6 decision is the second time the U.S. Supreme Court has passed on reviewing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision. In November it refused to place a stay on enforcement of the ruling days before the presidential election.
The Pennsylvania General Assembly has taken steps to pass amendments to clarify the vote-by-mail law in recent weeks.
House Bill 1396, sponsored by Speaker Joanna McClinton, D-Philadelphia, would give election workers up to a week before Election Day to prepare to count mail-in ballots, a process that has been a bottleneck for election results in parts of the state, and has provided fodder for election deniers. The measure would remedy other ambiguities in Act 77, such as making clear that county election officials must notify voters if their mail ballots are rejected. It passed the House with a 102-101 vote along party lines May 13.
Peter Hall has been a journalist in Pennsylvania and New Jersey for more than 20 years, most recently covering criminal justice and legal affairs for The Morning Call in Allentown. Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, the nation's largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Supreme Court won't hear GOP challenge to PA provisional ballot ruling
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
8 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration News: House Passes Sweeping Bill to Fulfill President's Domestic Agenda
Pinned The House on Thursday narrowly passed a sweeping bill to extend tax cuts and slash social safety net programs, capping Republicans' chaotic monthslong slog to overcome deep rifts within their party and deliver President Trump's domestic agenda. The final vote, 218 to 214, was mostly along party lines and came after Speaker Mike Johnson spent a frenzied day and night toiling to quell resistance in his ranks that threatened until the very end to derail the president's marquee legislation. With all but two Republicans in favor and Democrats uniformly opposed, the action cleared the bill for Mr. Trump's signature, meeting the July 4 deadline he had demanded. The legislation extends tax cuts enacted in 2017 that had been scheduled to expire at the end of the year, while adding new ones Mr. Trump promised during this campaign, on some tips and overtime pay, at a total cost of $4.5 trillion. It also increases funding for defense and border security and cuts nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, with more reductions to food assistance for the poor and other government aid. And it phases out clean-energy tax credits passed under former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that Mr. Trump and conservative Republicans have long decried. Also included is a $5 trillion increase in the debt limit, a measure that Republicans are typically unwilling to support but that was necessary to avert a federal default later this year. The bill's final passage was a major victory for congressional Republicans and for Mr. Trump, who celebrated in a Thursday night speech in Des Moines, Iowa, meant to kick off a yearlong celebration of the 250th anniversary of the country's founding. 'With this bill,' Mr. Trump said, 'every major promise I've made to the people of Iowa in 2024 became a promise kept.' Mr. Trump plans to sign what he has frequently referred to as his 'big, beautiful bill' on Friday. G.O.P. lawmakers who had feuded bitterly over the legislation ultimately united almost unanimously behind it, fearing the political consequences of allowing a tax increase and of crossing a president who demands unflagging loyalty and was pressuring them to fall into line. 'If you're for a secure border, safer communities and a strong military, this bill is for you,' Mr. Johnson said, extolling the bill ahead of the final vote. 'If you're for common-sense fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit, this bill is for you. If you're for fairer and lower taxes, bigger paychecks, affordable gas and groceries and restoring dignity to hard work, this is the bill for you.' But it also was a major political gamble for the party that will leave vulnerable lawmakers open to sharp attacks ahead of next year's midterm elections. Many economists have estimated that its greatest benefits would go to the wealthiest Americans, who would see the most generous tax cuts. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that cuts to Medicaid, including the imposition of a strict work requirement, could leave 11.8 million more people without health insurance by 2034. The office, studying earlier versions of the bill, had also warned of large benefit losses in food stamps, which will also have new work requirements, threatening to leave millions without benefits. At the same time, contrary to Republican claims that it cut deficits, the budget office reported the measure would swell the already soaring national debt by at least $3.4 trillion over a decade. Polls show that the bill is deeply unpopular, and Democrats have roundly denounced it as a move to slash critical government programs to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They have repeatedly accused Republicans of being so much in Mr. Trump's thrall that they embraced a bill that would harm their own constituents, with cuts to programs that the president had vowed to protect. In an impassioned closing speech on the House floor that stretched for more than eight and a half hours, breaking the chamber's record and delaying a final vote well into the afternoon, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, assailed the measure as a 'disgusting abomination' that would hurt Americans. In what amounted to a last gasp of Democratic opposition to the bill, Mr. Jeffries spent much of his time reading testimonials from Americans who said they relied on Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and other government help and worried that cuts would upend their lives. He made a point of highlighting that several of the letters came from people who live in Republican congressional districts that are among the Democrats' top targets for the midterm elections. 'This bill is an all-out assault on the health care of the people of the United States of America, hardworking American taxpayers,' Mr. Jeffries said. 'These are the people we should be standing up, to work hard to lift up. But instead, they're victims of this legislation.' In the messy, monthslong process of pushing through a bill that divided their party, Republicans in both the House and Senate made it clear that they, too, were uncomfortable with parts of it, criticizing its flaws before most of them ultimately banded together to pass it. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, who cast the deciding vote for the bill in her chamber after cutting a series of deals to insulate her constituents from its harshest cuts, said just moments after she had backed the bill that she did not like it. 'This has been an awful process — a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution,' Ms. Murkowski said in a statement earlier this week, in which she urged the House to reopen and improve it. As if to underscore the political risks of the bill — and the intense pressure Republicans faced from Mr. Trump to embrace it — Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced during Senate debate on it that he would not seek re-election next year. He went on to savage the bill as a disaster for Medicaid that would betray the president's promises to protect the program. The announcement from Mr. Tillis, whom Mr. Trump had threatened with a primary challenge after he expressed opposition to the bill, was a harsh reminder for Republicans of the consequences of crossing the president on the measure. Because of the slim Republican majorities in both chambers, ideological rifts within the party were frequently magnified as Mr. Johnson and Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, tried to muscle the legislation through the House and Senate. They succeeded only after protracted negotiations, several seemingly insurmountable setbacks and parliamentary gymnastics. The House devolved into paralysis on Wednesday and into Thursday morning in the hours before the final action, as a handful of Republicans withheld their votes to bring up the measure. Mr. Trump, who had met with recalcitrant Republicans throughout the day Wednesday to pressure them to support the measure, weighed in with angry posts on social media, threatening any defectors. 'MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!' he wrote. In the end, Mr. Johnson pulled off a victory, the latest in a series of instances in which he has faced resistance in his own party to a major legislative priority — only to pull out a narrow win with the help of considerable pressure from Mr. Trump. The bill squeaked through the Senate by the narrowest of margins on Tuesday. But the changes that senators made to cobble together support for it exacerbated party divides that have plagued G.O.P. efforts to advance Mr. Trump's agenda since the beginning. Fiscal conservatives demanded even deeper cuts to rein in the deficit, while more mainstream lawmakers whose seats are at risk were wary of the biggest cuts to popular government programs. One member of each faction voted against the bill on Thursday: Representative Thomas Massie, a fiscal hawk from a deep-red district in Kentucky who had railed against the high cost of the bill, and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate from a battleground district in suburban Pennsylvania that Democrats won in the 2024 presidential election, who had expressed concern about the Medicaid, SNAP and other safety net cuts. Mr. Trump and party leaders refused to reopen the bill for changes, a time-consuming process that would have blown through the president's chosen timetable and prolonged negotiations on the package for weeks or months, potentially killing the entire enterprise. Ultimately, the fiscal conservatives who had railed the most strongly against the bill followed a familiar pattern of caving and supporting it. Conservatives have repeatedly refused to back major legislation because of its potential impact on federal deficits, only to back down under pressure from Mr. Trump. After the House gave final approval on Thursday, the president waved off questions about the fractious process, telling reporters on his way to Iowa that it was 'very easy' to sway Republican holdouts. He equivocated on whether conservatives won any concessions outside the bill in last-minute talks. 'What I did is we talked about how good the bill is,' he said. Image Democratic representatives assailed the Republican bill on the steps of the Capitol on Wednesday before raising a number of procedural roadblocks on the House floor. Credit... Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, one such holdout, alluded to deals that he and others cut with Mr. Trump. Mr. Harris, the chairman of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, said that lawmakers were swayed by talk of 'executive actions' and other steps he and his administration could take to change the way the law would be carried out. 'We came to significant agreements with the administration that changed the entire package, both inside and outside the bill, significantly.' Mr. Harris said after the final vote. (Once enacted, the legislation itself cannot be changed except by an act of Congress.) Moments after the bill passed, some Freedom Caucus members were already raising the possibility of trying to push through another big policy bill later in the year under special rules that shield fiscal measures from a filibuster, allowing them to pass by a simple majority vote. Representative Chip Roy of Texas, a Freedom Caucus member and one of the Republican holdouts who ultimately voted to pass the bill, said Mr. Trump and White House officials assured him on Wednesday they could use 'another reconciliation package or two,' and executive orders, 'to fix some of the broken appropriations process,' including additional changes to Medicaid, as well as to Medicare. 'I got comfortable with what the administration can do to ameliorate those areas where it got worse,' after the bill was passed by the Senate, Mr. Roy added. Emboldened by the G.O.P. rifts, Democrats have made a point of projecting a united front while they railed against the bill and ramped up pressure on vulnerable Republicans. They condemned Republicans who had warned that many of their constituents rely on Medicaid and cautioned their party's leaders not to try to balance the federal budget at the expense of the much-needed health care program. 'We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations,' wrote Representative David Valadao of California, one of the most endangered Republicans, and 11 other G.O.P. lawmakers in an April letter to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Jeffries highlighted such statements during his remarks, appealing to Republicans to reject the bill. 'Join us, join us, join us!' he shouted at one point, turning to the G.O.P. side of the chamber. 'All we need are four,' he added, alluding to the number of Republican defections that would defeat the measure. But as the Democratic leader well knew, the Republicans who had spoken out had flipped their positions on the bill overnight. When the final vote came, every signatory to the letter voted yes. Reporting was contributed by Catie Edmondson , Tony Romm , Andrew Duehren , Chris Cameron and Tyler Pager .
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Budget bill includes $10B payday for states that spent on border security
Tucked into the budget reconciliation bill is a Texas-sized golden nugget: $13.5 billion that could pay back what the state spent on border security during the Biden administration. The bill – which passed Congress on July 3 – doesn't mention Texas by name. But Texas Gov. Greg Abbott lobbied hard for the line item's inclusion, and the state's Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn fought for the reimbursement. "Under Operation Lone Star, Texas allocated more than $11 billion of Texas taxpayer money for border security, and earlier this year I requested Congress reimburse Texas for these costs in full," Abbott said in a May statement, after an initial version of the bill passed in the House of Representatives. The new "State Border Border Security Reinforcement Fund" earmarks $10 billion for grants to states that paid for border barriers or other security measures beginning Jan. 20, 2021 – President Joe Biden's inauguration day. Notably, during the Biden administration, no other state spent more than Texas on border security measures. Under Operation Lone Star, the state deployed thousands of Texas National Guard troops to the border, placed controversial buoy barriers in the Rio Grande and paid to bus more than 100,000 migrants to Democrat-led cities around the country. Abbott was one of Biden's leading critics on the border during a period when the Border Patrol was registering more than 2 million migrant encounters a year – many of them lawful asylum-seekers. The "reinforcement" provision "just says 'states can apply.' But what states incurred expenses? Texas and Arizona," said Adam Isacson, director of defense oversight for the Washington Office on Latin America. Early during the Biden administration, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, sought to build a makeshift border barrier out of old shipping containers. But legal challenges forced his administration to remove the barrier, and his Democratic successor, Gov. Katie Hobbs, had previously asked the Biden administration to reimburse the state for border security funding totaling $513 million. The budget reconciliation bill includes an additional $3.5 billion under a fund whose acronym spells BIDEN: "Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide." That money can be disbursed to states that aid the federal government in its immigration crackdown. In an emailed response to questions, Abbott Press Secretary Andrew Mahaleris declined to say how much money Texas will apply for but told USA TODAY the governor "will continue to work closely with the Trump administration to secure the border. " This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Budget bill includes $10B for states that spent on border security
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Roberts and Gorsuch may decide the Supreme Court's blockbuster transgender sports case
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to weigh in on transgender sports bans will put two conservative justices in the spotlight in coming months, both because of what they have said in past cases involving LGBTQ rights – and what they haven't. Only two justices have written majority opinions involving transgender Americans – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch – and both avoided revealing their thoughts about the sports cases last month when, in a blockbuster ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans youth. For the second time in as many years the high court will wrestle with a heated legal dispute involving young transgender Americans at a time when they are facing severe political backlash driven in part by President Donald Trump and conservative states. The court agreed to hear appeals in two related cases challenging laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban transgender girls and women from competing on women's sports teams – including one that was filed by a middle school student at the time. While the court swerved around fundamental questions about trans rights in last month's decision in US v. Skrmetti, it will be far harder to do so in the sports cases. And that could put enormous focus on Roberts and Gorsuch. 'Even though the court ruled against the transgender plaintiffs in Skrmetti, it did not decide the larger and more important question of whether discrimination based on transgender status triggers more searching judicial review,' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'Everything,' Vladeck predicted, 'is going to come down to where Roberts and Gorsuch are.' In some ways, the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on June 18 upholding Tennessee's ban on certain transgender care was limited. That opinion, written by Roberts, explicitly declined to decide if the law discriminated against transgender youth. Tennessee's policy, Roberts reasoned, instead drew boundaries based on age and medical procedures that were well within a state's power to regulate. That logic avoided thorny questions about whether the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause if it specifically targeted transgender minors for different treatment. Tennessee's law, Roberts wrote, 'classifies on the basis of age' and 'classifies on the basis of medical use.' But it will be more difficult for the court to duck those broader questions in the sports cases, several experts said. 'It is notable that the court seemed to go out of its way to avoid endorsing the idea that the law discriminated against transgender people and instead found that the Tennessee law had drawn lines based on age and medical diagnoses,' said Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia Law School professor and an expert on gender and sexuality law. 'The new cases squarely present the discrimination questions in ways that will be hard to avoid,' she said. 'It's important,' she said, 'not to lose sight of the fact that these cases involve kids trying to make their way through school and life like every other kid.' Gorsuch, who was Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, joined the majority opinion in the Tennessee case but did not write separately to explain his position. His silence was significant given that one of the key arguments at stake was how – or whether – to apply the landmark 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that he authored. In that decision, the court ruled that transgender workers are covered by federal protections against discrimination based on sex because discrimination against a transgender person is, by extension, necessarily also discrimination based on sex. The Biden administration and transgender teenagers fighting Tennessee's law asserted that the same logic should apply when it comes to gender identity care bans. But the court has never extended its reasoning in Bostock beyond the workplace, and the decision drew immediate and sharp criticism from the right at the time. John Bursch, a veteran Supreme Court litigator and senior counsel at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, predicted that both Roberts and Gorsuch will ultimately back the state bans on transgender people participating in sports that align with their gender identity given their votes in the Tennessee dispute. 'If they were in agreement that Tennessee's law did not discriminate based on gender identity, I would assume that both of them would come to the same conclusion here when it comes to sports,' Bursch said. 'But you never know for sure, and anytime that we go to the court, we assume that all nine justices are in play.' Alliance Defending Freedom is a co-counsel in both sports cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear. 'Our hope is that we would get a unanimous ruling to protect women's sports in favor of both West Virginia and Idaho in their laws,' Bursch added. Other members of the court's six-justice conservative wing – including two who are often decisive votes – have more clearly signaled their thoughts on anti-trans laws. In the Tennessee case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned a concurring opinion making clear that she opposed granting transgender status the same anti-discrimination protections that race and sex have under the 14th Amendment. She also was the only member of the court's majority that day to raise sports in an opinion. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy – ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' Barrett wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz(ing) legislative choices' in all these domains.' Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurrence arguing against extending Bostock's reasoning to constitutional cases. During oral arguments over Tennessee's law in December, Justice Brett Kavanaugh – another justice who is sometimes seen as a swing vote – mentioned sports as he peppered the lawyer for the Biden administration with skeptical questions about her position. 'If you prevail here,' asked Kavanaugh, who has frequently noted that he coached his daughters' basketball teams, 'what would that mean for women's and girls' sports in particular?' 'Would transgender athletes have a constitutional right, as you see it, to play in women's and girls' sports, basketball, swimming, volleyball, track, et cetera, notwithstanding the competitive fairness and safety issues that have been vocally raised by some female athletes?' Kavanaugh pressed. In response, then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar attempted to distinguish the sports cases from Tennessee's law. She noted that some lower courts had already held that the sports bans triggered a higher level of judicial scrutiny. Kavanaugh also dissented from Gorsuch's decision in Bostock. The court's three liberals dissented in the Tennessee case, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that the majority had pulled back from 'meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most' and instead 'abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' In the West Virginia case, then Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, signed the 'Save Women's Sports Act' in 2021, banning transgender women and girls from participating on public school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a rising sixth grader at the time, who was 'looking forward to trying out for the girls' cross-country team,' filed a lawsuit alleging that the ban violated federal law and the Constitution. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that West Virginia's ban violated Pepper-Jackson's rights under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. The court also revived her constitutional challenge of the law. Two years ago, the Supreme Court denied West Virginia's emergency docket request to let it fully enforce its ban. Alito and Thomas dissented from that decision, though the focus of their objection was that neither the Supreme Court nor the 4th Circuit had offered an explanation for their decisions. In Idaho, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed the state's sports ban in 2020. Lindsay Hecox, then a freshman at Boise State University, sued days later, saying that she intended to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams and alleging the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. A federal district court blocked the law's enforcement against Hecox months later and the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision last year. Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court in July. State officials in West Virginia and Idaho praised the court's decision to take up the cases. 'Idaho was the first state to step out and ban boys and men from competing with girls and women in organized athletics,' Little said on Thursday, describing the law as a 'common sense' policy intended to 'protect the American way of life.' Lawyers for the transgender athletes described the laws as discriminatory and harmful. The Supreme Court will likely hear arguments in the cases later this year or in early 2026 and is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June.
