U.S. Supreme Court rejects GOP request to review Pa. provisional ballot ruling
A GOP challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling on provisional ballots is dead, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case Friday.
The high court's rejection 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.
The board of elections reasoned that 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 decision last week 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.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
25 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Rejects Inmate's Request to Have His Pacemaker Turned Off Before Lethal Injection
The U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 4 declined to stay the execution of a Tennessee inmate whose lawyers argued his pacemaker may cause him pain by shocking him during the execution process. Byron Lewis Black is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Aug. 5. On the evening of Aug. 4, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, said he would not grant Black a reprieve.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Brazil's Supreme Court orders house arrest for former President Bolsonaro, a Trump ally
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil's Supreme Court on Monday ordered the house arrest for former President Jair Bolsonaro, on trial for allegedly masterminding a coup plot to remain in office despite his defeat in the 2022 election — a case that has gripped the South American country as it faces a trade war with the Trump administration. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case against Bolsonaro before the top court, said in his decision that the 70-year-old former president had violated precautionary measures imposed on him by spreading content through his three lawmaker sons. Bolsonaro's lawyers said in a statement that he will appeal the decision. They said his words 'good afternoon, Copacabana, good afternoon my Brazil, a hug to everyone, this is for our freedom" — broadcast from a cell phone of one of his sons during a Sunday protest in Rio de Janeiro — cannot 'be regarded as ignoring precautionary measures or as a criminal act.' The trial of the far-right leader is receiving renewed attention after U.S. President Donald Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on imported Brazilian goods to his ally's judicial situation. Trump has called the proceedings a ' witch hunt,' triggering nationalist reactions from leaders of all branches of power in Brazil, including President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Hours after the decision, the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs said on X that the Trump administration 'condemns (de) Moraes' order imposing house arrest on Bolsonaro and will hold accountable all those aiding and abetting sanctioned conduct.' 'Putting even more restrictions on Jair Bolsonaro's ability to defend himself in public is not a public service. Let Bolsonaro speak!' the U.S. State Department body said. The case against Bolsonaro Brazil's prosecutors accuse Bolsonaro of heading a criminal organization that plotted to overturn the election, including plans to kill Lula and Justice de Moraes after the far-right leader narrowly lost his reelection bid in 2022. Monday's order followed one from the top court last month that ordered Bolsonaro to wear an electronic ankle monitor and imposed a curfew on his activities while the proceedings are underway. Following news of the arrest order, a staffer with Brazil's federal police told The Associated Press that federal agents had seized cell phones at Bolsonaro's residence in the capital of Brasilia, as ordered by de Moraes in his decision. The staffer spoke on condition of anonymity due to their lack of authorization to speak about the matter publicly. Bolsonaro is expected to remain in Brasilia for his house arrest as he is not allowed to travel. He also has a house in Rio de Janeiro, where he held his electoral base as a lawmaker for three decades. The former army captain is the fourth former president of Brazil to be arrested since the end of the country's military rule from 1964 to 1985, which Bolsonaro supported. 'Flagrant disrespect' The move from the Brazilian justice comes a day after tens of thousands of Bolsonaro supporters took the streets in the cities of Sao Paulo and Rio, pleading for Brazil's congress to pardon him and hundreds of others who are either under trial or jailed for their roles in the destruction of government buildings in Brasilia on Jan. 8, 2023. On Sunday, Bolsonaro addressed supporters in Rio through the phone of one of his sons, which de Moraes' described as illegal. 'The flagrant disrespect to the precautionary measures was so obvious that the defendant's son, Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, decided to remove the posting in his Instagram profile, with the objective of hiding the legal transgression,' de Moraes wrote. Flávio Bolsonaro claimed on X that Brazil 'is officially in a dictatorship' after his father's house arrest. 'The persecution of de Moraes against Bolsonaro has no limits!' the senator wrote. De Moraes added in his ruling that Jair Bolsonaro, who governed Brazil between 2019 and 2022, has spread messages with 'a clear content of encouragement and instigation to attacks against the Supreme Court and a blatant support for foreign intervention in the Brazilian Judiciary' — likely a veiled reference to Trump's support for Bolsonaro. De Moraes also said that Bolsonaro 'addressed protesters gathered in Copacabana, in Rio' on Sunday so his supporters could 'try to coerce the Supreme Court.' Last week, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions on de Moraes over alleged suppression of freedom of expression regarding Bolsonaro's trial. On Monday, the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs called the Brazilian justice 'a U.S.-sanctioned human rights abuser' and accused him of using "institutions to silence opposition and threaten democracy." De Moraes said in his decision that '(Brazil's) judiciary will not allow a defendant to make a fool out of it." "Justice is the same for all. A defendant who willingly ignores precautionary measures — for the second time — must suffer legal consequences,' he said. Possible trouble ahead Creomar de Souza, a political analyst of Dharma Political Risk and Strategy, a political consultancy firm based in Brasilia, said Bolsonaro's house arrest opens a new moment for the country's opposition, which will could gather steam in fighting against Lula's reelection bid next year. Now, de Souza said, 'the 2026 election looks like turmoil' and the political debate in Brazil will likely be split between two key struggles. 'One is the effort of Bolsonaro supporters to keep strong on the right, no matter if it is pushing for amnesty in congress or putting themselves physically out there,' the analyst said. 'The second is how the Lula administration will try to show that the country has a government.' 'This is just the start,' he concluded. The latest decision from the top court keeps Bolsonaro under ankle monitoring, allows only family members and lawyers to visit him and seizes all mobile phones from his home. Lula was imprisoned for 580 days between 2018 and 2019 in a corruption conviction that was later tossed out by the Supreme Court, citing the bias of the judge in the case. Michel Temer, who became president after Dilma Rousseff was impeached in 2016, was arrested for 10 days in 2019 in connection with a graft investigation, which later ended without a conviction. Earlier this year, de Moraes ordered the detention of President Fernando Collor, who was in office from 1990 to 1992 until he was impeached. The 75-year-old former president was convicted for money laundering and corruption in 2023 and is now serving his more than eight-year sentence. Hours after the order, right-wing lawmakers criticized de Moraes' decision and compared Bolsonaro's situation to that of his predecessors. 'House arrest for Jair Bolsonaro by de Moraes. Reason: corruption?' asked lawmaker Nikolas Ferreira. 'No. His kids posted his content on social media. Pathetic.' The far-right leader is already barred from next year's election due to an abuse of power conviction by the country's top electoral court. 'And those who attacked it are about to pay,' Salabert said.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Nebraska Republican faces rowdy town hall with questions about Epstein files and fired BLS chief
Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., held a town hall Monday that started with boos from the crowd shortly after he took the stage and ended with chants of 'vote him out' when the event ended. In between, the Nebraska Republican was consistently heckled while responding to questions about releasing more information on Jeffrey Epstein, President Donald Trump's firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner and cuts to Medicaid in the GOP's 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' Audience members began yelling at Flood and booing him when he talked about Medicaid and the impact of Trump's sweeping domestic policy law on hospitals in Nebraska. Flood argued that there's 'a lot of misinformation' about the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which no Democrats voted for when it made its way through Congress this summer. Later he faced a question that suggested he was covering up files related to Epstein. Flood responded by saying he supports releasing the files and will co-sponsor a non-binding House resolution calling for their publication. Flood added that he supports an effort led by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., to have Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell sit for a deposition. Comer last week postponed Maxwell's deposition, previously scheduled for Aug. 11, until at least October to let the Supreme Court decide in late September whether it will review her case. Flood also weighed in on the firing of BLS chief Erika McEntarfer, who Trump dismissed Friday shortly after the agency published figures showing that hiring in the U.S. had significantly slowed significantly in recent months. The congressman suggested he might have handled the situation differently, while adding that he does not know 'all the details' about McEntarfer's firing. 'I don't know what the situation was with the Department of Labor person. Neither do you. I don't know. I don't know,' Flood said. 'I can tell you I've been an employer for a lot of years, and there's always two sides to every story, and I don't know what that side was. I will say this, though, if all that person did was get the data out there, if all that, and I don't know that's the case, but if that's all they did, I would not have fired her.' Several Republican senators, as well as economists and statisticians, took issue with Trump terminating McEntarfer last week. Audience members yelled, jeered and booed throughout the event, with audible chants of 'free Palestine,' 'tax the rich,' and during the town hall's conclusion, calls to 'vote him out.' When Flood attempted to engage with audience members on those topics, he was largely met with more protests. Attendees asked at least three different questions about the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, specifically about Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz,' which one attendee called 'Alligator Auschwitz.' Inquiring about the immigration detention facility in Florida, one attendee asked Flood, 'How much do taxpayers have to pay for a fascist country?' Flood responded to by saying the majority of Americans voted for Trump and not for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. 'Americans voted for a, for a border that is secure, and I support the president enforcing our immigration laws, which, by the way, were written by Congress,' he added, prompting more boos. The Nebraska Democratic Party encouraged people to attend Flood's town hall, telling voters of Nebraska's 1st Congressional District in a social media post, 'you know what to do!' The party also encouraged attendance at Flood's last in-person town hall in the state, in May, when he was grilled by audience members and at one point conceded he had not read a bill in full before voting in favor of it.
