ACLU: ‘Notice and cure' policies helped 9,000 Pennsylvanians have their votes counted
More than 9,000 Pennsylvanians successfully cast ballots in the 2024 election, after they initially made mistakes on vote-by-mail ballots, a voting rights group said.
About half of the voters who made errors on their mail ballots were able to preserve their rights to vote. That's an improvement over recent elections, when confusion over the rules for voting by mail caused as many as 22,000 voters to be disenfranchised in 2022.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania said its analysis of the 2024 election found more than 7,000 voters were notified by county election officials they forgot to sign or date their ballot envelopes or made similar disqualifying mistakes. County policies allowed those people to correct the errors and have their ballots counted.
A further 2,000 were able to vote because of a state Supreme Court decision last year that requires county election officials to count provisional ballots cast by voters who find out that their mail ballots have been disqualified.
But more than 8,500 voters still did not have their votes counted because of errors that have not bearing on their qualifications to cast ballots, the analysis found. And 6,500 mail ballots were not counted because they arrived after the Election Day deadline.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The findings the ACLU of Pennsylvania published Thursday show county policies and the Supreme Court's ruling made a difference, Mike Lee, the group's executive director, said.
'That's a win for democracy, and we applaud the majority of counties that inform voters about their potentially disqualifying mistakes. Our question for the other counties is, 'Why aren't you doing more to help people vote?'' Lee said in a statement.
Pennsylvania's 67 counties have a patchwork of differing practices under Act 77, which made voting by mail without an excuse an option for the first time in 2020.
Some counties inform voters by telephone, email or letter that they have made mistakes ahead of Election Day. Others record canceled ballots in the Statewide Uniform Registry of Voters (SURE), which automatically generates an email that tells voters about their ballot's status. When voters know there's a problem, they can preserve their right to vote by casting a provisional ballot at their polling place.
In a case led by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center last year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of voters from Butler County that election officials were required to count the provisional ballots cast after their primary ballots were canceled.
Marian Schneider, the ACLU of Pennsylvania's senior policy counsel for voting rights, told the Capital-Star the Supreme Court has not made a definitive ruling whether county election officials are required to give voters a chance to fix their mistakes. The Election Code doesn't directly address the subject leaving counties broad authority to do what they want, Schneider said.
The Department of State, which oversees elections at the state level, could make a rule that all counties have to record whether a ballot has been rejected in the SURE system. That would give voters the notice they need to cast a provisional ballot, Schneider said.
Legislation awaiting action in the state House would address three of the main reasons mail-in ballots get rejected.
House Bill 499 introduced by Rep. Joe Webster (D-Montgomery) would change the deadline to apply for a mail ballot from seven days before the election to 12 days, to ensure that the postal service has enough time to deliver and return them.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
It would also eliminate the requirement to use a blank secrecy envelope inside the return envelope for mail ballots. Ballots returned without secrecy envelopes now must be disqualified.
Webster's bill would clarify that the requirement to sign and date mail-in ballots means to include the date of the voter's signature. It would also state that failing to date the ballot cannot be the sole reason to disqualify the ballot.
And it would explicitly give counties the authority to use ballot drop boxes and establish minimum requirements for the counties that choose to do so.
Another measure Webster introduced, House Bill 473, would prohibit third-party organizations from sending ballot applications to eligible voters. Ballot applications submitted in bulk, sometimes with incorrect information, prompted investigations in several counties last fall.
Rep. Scott Conklin (D-Centre) introduced House Bill 37 to allow counties to begin preparing to count mail ballots up to a week before Election Day. Election workers now may not begin preparing mail ballots until polls open on Election Day, leading to delays in providing election results.
The legislation, which Conklin said is consistently the most requested change to Act 77, passed the House last session but was not considered in the Senate.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
26 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Oregon city at heart of Supreme Court homelessness ruling to ensure camping spaces under settlement
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon city at the heart of a major U.S. Supreme Court homelessness ruling has agreed to ensure camping spaces for at least 150 people as part of a settlement reached with a disability rights group that sued the city over its camping rules. Disability Rights Oregon, which sued Grants Pass in January, said Friday that it had reached a settlement agreement. The advocacy group accused the city of discriminating against people with disabilities and violating a state law requiring cities' camping regulations to be 'objectively reasonable.' 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water, and real opportunity to stabilize their lives,' Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of Disability Rights Oregon, said in a statement. Grants Pass Mayor Clint Scherf said in an email Tuesday that the city appreciates having reached an agreement and will 'continue to work toward effective measures to benefit all members of our community.' A copy of the settlement agreement showed the city signed off on it earlier this month. Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Sarah McGlaughlin issued a preliminary injunction in March blocking the city from enforcing its camping rules unless it increased capacity at city-approved sites for camping and ensured they are physically accessible to people with disabilities. City ordinances prohibit sleeping or leaving personal property in a park overnight in most cases. Those found in violation can be fined up to $50. The city said Friday on Facebook that law enforcement 'will begin noticing the parks, and occupants will have 72 hours to remove their belongings.' The city's website shows three 'designated resting locations' in the downtown area, near City Hall and the police station, where people can stay for four days before having to relocate. The time limit can be enforced unless disability accommodations are necessary, the city said on Facebook. At resting sites, individuals are limited to spaces that are 8 feet by 8 feet (2.4 meters by 2.4 meters), with buffers of 3 feet (0.9 meters) between spaces, as outlined in city code. Under the settlement, Grants Pass must ensure that at least 150 camping spaces are available in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next 12 months. Drinking water and hand washing stations must be available on-site. The city must also provide $60,000 in grant funding to a nonprofit for homeless services. Grants Pass, a small city of about 40,000 along the Rogue River in the mountains of southern Oregon, has struggled for years to address the homelessness crisis and become emblematic of the national debate over how to deal with it. Its parks in particular became a flashpoint, with many of them becoming the site of encampments blighted by drug use and litter. Last June, in a case brought by the city, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that communities can ban sleeping outside and fine people for doing so, even when there are not enough shelter beds. After the high court ruling, Grants Pass banned camping on all city property except locations designated by the City Council, which established sites for the town's hundreds of homeless people in a bid to move them from the parks. Upon taking office in January, the new mayor and new council members moved to close the larger of the two sites, which housed roughly 120 tents, according to Disability Rights Oregon's complaint, which said the sites were frequently crowded with poor conditions and inaccessible to people with disabilities because of loose gravel. After the lawsuit was filed, the city reopened a second, smaller site. McGlaughin's order in March said the city had to increase capacity to what it had been before the larger site was closed. Homelessness increased 18% last year nationwide, driven mostly by a lack of affordable housing as well as devastating natural disasters and an increase in migrants in some areas.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Potential Trump Supreme Court pick rails against ‘cultural elites' in drag ban reversal dissent
There are no current vacancies on the Supreme Court. But the Donald Trump White House has said that it wants judges in the mold of the high court's two oldest justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. A new dissent that name-checks both justices is a reminder that one front-runner for any vacancy that emerges could be Judge James Ho, whom Trump previously appointed to a federal appeals court. In his dissent, Ho invoked conservative talking points, like transgender sports participation, and railed against 'cultural elites.' The case decided Monday concerned Spectrum WT, an LGBT+ student organization at West Texas A&M University. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit split 2-1 in ruling for the group that had raised a free speech claim. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump appointee of mifepristone case fame, denied the group a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the First Amendment didn't apply to the drag show. The appellate panel majority reversed the district judge, with George W. Bush appointee Leslie Southwick writing the opinion, joined by Clinton appointee James Dennis. Southwick wrote that Kacsmaryk 'erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.' The panel majority said the plaintiffs' drag show is protected constitutional expression. In his dissent, Ho argued that a 2010 Supreme Court precedent called Christian Legal Society (CLS) v. Martinez, which went against a student group that wanted to exclude gay people while receiving school funding, should've led the appellate panel to rule against the plaintiffs in this case. Writing that he disagrees with the CLS decision even as he's bound by it, Ho said he 'will not apply a different legal standard in this case, just because drag shows enjoy greater favor among cultural elites than the religious activities at issue in CLS.' Obviously, the majority did not explain its ruling that way. One of the ways it sought to distinguish this case from the CLS case was by writing, 'Instead of the significant interference with the right of expressive association that the Supreme Court permitted there, the university here was interfering with the expressive activity itself, the speech.' At any rate, one implication of Ho's dissent is that the majority did the untoward thing he valiantly refused to do: apply a double standard in service of some undefined 'cultural elites.' Lawyers and judges generally bolster their points by citing authorities, but Ho didn't do so there, nor did he explain which 'elites' he was talking about. Perhaps we are supposed to understand implicitly — and perhaps we do. Though one wonders how 'elite' is the group if it needs to wage a legal battle to put on a show? Ho's 'cultural elites' remark was just the beginning, however. He added to his dissent's culture-war complaints by positing that 'if university officials allow men to act as women in campus events like drag shows, they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women's sports.' The judge conceded that drag shows and women's sports 'might seem, on first blush, to have little to do with one another.' But he proceeded to make the case, citing sources that included a book that worried, 'If we accept that people can change genders — or even if we don't but agree to be 'polite' and call a man 'she' — then why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to play women's sports or bathe naked in an all-women's space? Why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to enter women's abuse houses or be transferred to a women's prison? Why accept one lie and not the whole thing?' (To be clear, Ho included that full quote in his dissent.) He also leaned on Alito's dissent in the CLS case, which was joined by Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and the late Antonin Scalia. Ho separately cited Thomas' concurrence in the recent Skrmetti case approving a gender-affirming care ban for minors, specifically where Thomas noted 'several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class.' Ho used the justice's observation to bolster his point that 'judges should not blindly trust experts in education, anymore than we should in any other field.' It was the appeals court judge's latest display of his willingness — and apparent eagerness — to step into any vacancy that Thomas or Alito might one day leave. If such a vacancy emerges, then so does the prospect of encountering Ho's writings in Supreme Court opinions for decades to come. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Northern Virginia schools at risk of losing funding over transgender bathroom policies
Five northern Virginia school districts are at risk of losing their federal funding after they rejected the terms on an agreement with the Education Department to resolve probes into their transgender students policies. Districts representing Alexandria City, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County and Prince William County have been placed on high-risk status, the agency said Tuesday. All federal funding sent to these school districts will now be done by reimbursement only, forcing the schools to pay their education expenses up front. More than $50 million of formula funding, discretionary grants and impact aid grants are at risk. Education Department officials said they are now proceeding with efforts to suspend or terminate federal funding to these school districts. 'States and school districts cannot openly violate federal law while simultaneously receiving federal funding with no additional scrutiny,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. 'The Northern Virginia School Divisions that are choosing to abide by woke gender ideology in place of federal law must now prove they are using every single federal dollar for a legal purpose.' The Education Department said the schools were found to be in violation of Title IX, the federal education law that bars sex discrimination, because of their policies allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. Officials said the agency's Office for Civil Rights finished its investigation on July 25 and the school districts did not sign a proposed resolution agreement by its Aug. 15 deadline. The department's action marks a major step against the D.C. area's suburban school systems, and it is one that is most often deployed against entities with a history of financial instability, poor fiscal management, a track record of unsatisfactory performance with federal funds, and other missteps. In one instance, the U.S. Virgin Islands school system was designated by the department as a "high-risk" grantee in the late 1990s because of unsatisfactory performance. The agency has also imposed the designation on Guam and American Samoa. The Trump administration has said Title IX will now only be interpreted based on biological sex and has sought to end transgender student participation in sports teams and use of single-sex facilities that align with their gender identity. But the school districts' policies align with a landmark case in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that bolsters transgender students' rights in the state. In 2021, the Supreme Court punted on the long-winding legal battle over transgender students' rights to use bathrooms that match their gender identity in Gavin Grimm's case against the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia. The 4th Circuit sided with Grimm twice, ruling the transgender bathroom ban was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court's decision to not hear the case meant the appeals court's decision remained in place. The Supreme Court punted again in 2024 on an Indiana school bathrooms case, but has agreed to take up a pair of challenges over state laws barring transgender students from women's sports. Juan Perez Jr. contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword