There is a line for the date next to the signature. It's supposed to be the date it was signed. Some people mistakenly put their birthdate. Some people use the European format. Some people leave it blank. And then sometimes people just fuck up for no particular reason and put the wrong month or year.
None of these errors should invalidate their vote.
It does seem pretty safe to assume that the ballot was signed sometime between the time it was printed and the date it was postmarked which, given the fast-paced and tumultuous nature of American politics, surely cannot be that wide of a window. And if the purpose is to somehow catch people submitting ballots after the cutoff date, surely one would expect a wouldbe election fraudster to lose no sleep in also falsifying an earlier date, making one wonder why this information is all that pertinent to begin with.
Now, a more cynical person might assume that this was just another one of those little traps specifically engineered to attract common mistakes (knowing full well that some of us are still putting the year down as "2015" because goddammit, what the hell time is it?) which can then be selectively enforced depending on whether or not you want to invalidate a large swath of votes. But I mean, surely our very trustworthy elected officials would never do such a thing...
We do as a collective states/country try to make voting hard to do, while declaring it as one of the fundamental rights and duties of citizens. Some things should invalidate a vote, others seem there as hoops to jump through to restrict them while not being obviously relevant to legitimacy. Even going back to the shitshow of 2000 with hanging chads and how ridiculous some of the "experts" would carry things to argue the "intent" of a voter.
My PA ballot was pre-filled with 2024 as the year.
They need to be more specific in that area, I know it's obvious, but some folks still misunderstand it. Put "today's date" instead of just "date".
I know, I know we are on lemmy, where all judges are wrong and evil, but this actually seems pretty cut and dry.
Act No. 320 of 1937 ("Pennsylvania Election Code"). Section 1306-D:
(a) General rule.--At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o'clock P.M. the day of the primary or election, the mail-in elector shall, in secret, proceed to mark the ballot only in black lead pencil, indelible pencil or blue, black or blue-black ink, in fountain pen or ball point pen, and then fold the ballot, enclose and securely seal the same in the envelope on which is printed, stamped or endorsed "Official Election Ballot." This envelope shall then be placed in the second one, on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, and the address of the elector's county board of election and the local election district of the elector. The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.
Abridged:
At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o'clock P.M. the day of the primary or election the mail-in elector shall [...] then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.
The "correct date" is any date before or on the day of the election, according to the code. A judge reads and interprets the written law, and this seems like a simple read.
The counter argument to the apparently unanimous reading of the law by all parties presented in court hinged on: "Pennsylvania's constitution, which says that elections in the state 'shall be free and equal' " making the law itself unconstitutional, which I'm not surprised wasn't very persuasive. Ballot envelopes without written dates were presumably treated equally (as opposed to being treated differently based on the vote cast) and the state didn't interfere with the ability to fill out the date. The rules were laid down and everyone who followed them had their vote counted equally.
I can already hear people in the comments screaming about how they don't like it. The standards for the mail-in ballots have been there since 1937 and nobody had a problem with them until right this moment when it looked like letting them slide might flip a close election. If you still don't like them, pressure the legislature, not the judges. There's not a ton of wiggle room in how to read the code.
If judges didn't want to be looked at with suspicion, then they should stop collectively consenting to dipshit interpretations of the law. It might not be so in this particular instance, but it popped up a pretty convenient time, politically speaking.
The law is stupid, dont blame the PA Supreme Court. That's the state legislature's fault.
Judges makes an interpretation of laws, they don't make an interpretation of what makes most sense. They aren't doing judicial activism.
The majority of the court is affliated with democrats, so its not like this is some partisan decison.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News