Latest news with #PennsylvaniaSupremeCourt
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
GOP challenge to PA ruling on provisional ballots rejected by Supreme Court
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court has passed on an opportunity to dictate how much state courts can interpret election regulations. On June 6, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican challenge to a Pennsylvania court's ruling on provisional ballots, a case that could have restricted how much leeway state courts have to interpret federal election rules. During the 2024 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said voters should be able to cast provisional ballots if they failed to encase an absentee ballot in the required secrecy sleeve. State and national Republicans argued that would give voters an 'unauthorized do-over' for 'naked ballots' or for other mistakes on mail-in votes. And they said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision usurped the power the Constitution gives state legislatures to set federal election rules. Few run for judge of elections. Why? Polarizing politics chills participation in Bucks County primary races. Why no one ran In November, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the GOP's emergency request to intervene as ballots were being cast. The Republican National Committee said the justices should decide the issue now because they can do so without worrying whether their decision would affect an ongoing election. Pennsylvania Democrats countered that the 2024 ruling by the state supreme court was consistent with the text of state election law and with the intent of the legislators who set the rules. Bucks primaries 2025: Bucks County went to the polls for the primary: Get the results of election day 2025 There's no good reason, Democrats said, for the Supreme Court to review what was a routine interpretation of a state law. Getting involved would invite appeals in 'any and every state-law election case," lawyers for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party told the justices. 'That is not a regime the Court should foster,' they wrote. The case is the second about election law the court agreed to hear next term. They will also decide whether a GOP congressman can challenge Illinois' decision to count mail-in ballots that are cast, but not received, before the end of Election Day. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: GOP election-rule challenge in PA rejected by Supreme Court
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court leaves in place District of Columbia's gun restriction on large magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a longstanding gun restriction in the District of Columbia that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, opting once again to avoid taking up a new gun rights case. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors gun rights, turned away a challenge to the Washington, D.C., law just a few days after rejecting an appeal over a similar law in Rhode Island. Then, the court also left in place Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Follow live politics coverage here The court expanded gun rights in a major 2022 ruling that found for the first time that the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment extends outside the home. But the court has since frustrated gun owners by declining to take up cases that would expand upon that ruling. The District of Columbia has long been a legal battleground over gun restrictions. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling that for the first time found that people have an individual right to bear arms in self defense in their homes arose from a challenge to a D.C. law. In the latest case, four gun owners challenged the restriction on large-capacity magazines that was enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, saying the restriction is unlawful under the later 2022 decision. Both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law. The appeals court, in a 2-1 vote, said in a ruling last year that although large-capacity magazines are arms under the Second Amendment and have been in common use for years, they can be regulated because they are "particularly dangerous." Last summer, the Supreme Court sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In other action on pending appeals Friday, the court decided against taking up a significant election case involving mail-in ballots in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that pitted Republicans against Democrats. The decision leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said voters who send mail-in ballots that are flagged as defective can then file a separate provision in-person ballot. The Republican National Committee was seeking to overturn the 2024 state court decision, while the Democratic National Committee was defending it. This article was originally published on
Reuters
4 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court rejects Republican election-rule challenge in Pennsylvania
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court passed up a chance to give politicians more power over how federal elections are conducted, declining on Friday to hear a Republican challenge to a Pennsylvania judicial decision requiring the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who make mistakes on their mail-in ballots. The justices turned away an appeal by the Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Pennsylvania of a decision by Pennsylvania's top court on provisional ballots that the plaintiffs said ran afoul of legislature-crafted voting rules, violating the U.S. Constitution's election-related provisions. The dispute returned to the Supreme Court after the justices, on the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, rejected the emergency bid by the Republicans to block tallying the provisional ballots. The Republicans objected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's October ruling in favor of two Butler County voters who sought to have their provisional ballots counted after their mail-in ballots were rejected during that state's 2024 presidential primary election for lacking secrecy envelopes. Election rules in states like Pennsylvania that often play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of U.S. presidential elections are a particularly sensitive issue. Republican President Donald Trump prevailed in Pennsylvania last November, but lost the state in 2020 to his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, who won the presidency that year. The case follows a major 2023 Supreme Court ruling that allows the justices to second-guess state courts if they undermine the power that the Constitution gives state legislatures to craft election rules. That 6-3 ruling, which upheld a North Carolina state court's decision that invalidated a Republican-drawn congressional map as unlawfully disadvantaging Democrats, also rejected a more extreme theory advanced by many Republicans and conservatives that would have removed any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections. The ruling, however, stopped short of announcing a legal test for determining when state courts have ventured too far in "arrogating to themselves" a legislature's power. In the Pennsylvania case, Republicans asked the Supreme Court to answer that question, contending that the state supreme court's ruling violated the Constitution's elections provisions, including that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." Provisional ballots generally protect voters from being excluded from the voting process if their eligibility is uncertain on Election Day. The vote is counted once officials confirm eligibility. Republicans intervened to defend Butler County's decision not to count the ballots from these voters, saying Pennsylvania's election law does not allow provisional ballots to be counted if a mail-in ballot was received on time by a county board of elections. Democrats intervened on the side of the voters, contending that if a mail-in ballot is defective and cannot be counted, that person has not yet voted and a provisional ballot must be counted. A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court last October sided with the voters, saying that provisional ballots prevent double voting while protecting voters' right to have one vote counted.
NBC News
4 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court leaves District of Columbia gun restriction on large magazines in place
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a longstanding gun restriction in the District of Columbia that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, opting once again to avoid taking up a new gun rights case. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors gun rights, turned away a challenge to the Washington, D.C., law just a few days after rejecting an appeal over a similar law in Rhode Island. Then, the court also left in place Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. The court expanded gun rights in a major 2022 ruling that found for the first time that the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment extends outside the home. But the court has since frustrated gun owners by declining to take up cases that would expand upon that ruling. The District of Columbia has long been a legal battleground over gun restrictions. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling that for the first time found that people have an individual right to bear arms in self defense in their homes arose from a challenge to a D.C. law. In the latest case, four gun owners challenged the restriction on large-capacity magazines that was enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, saying the restriction is unlawful under the later 2022 decision. Both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law. The appeals court, in a 2-1 vote, said in a ruling last year that although large-capacity magazines are arms under the Second Amendment and have been in common use for years, they can be regulated because they are "particularly dangerous." Last summer, the Supreme Court sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In other action on pending appeals Friday, the court decided against taking up a significant election case involving mail-in ballots in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that pitted Republicans against Democrats. The decision leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said voters who send mail-in ballots that are flagged as defective can then file a separate provision in-person ballot. The Republican National Committee was seeking to overturn the 2024 state court decision, while the Democratic National Committee was defending it.
USA Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court rejects GOP challenge to Pennsylvania ruling about provisional ballots
Supreme Court rejects GOP challenge to Pennsylvania ruling about provisional ballots Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court hears arguments on judges' block on Trump birthright EO The justices heard arguments on whether its ok for judges to universally block President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 6 rejected a Republican challenge to a Pennsylvania court's ruling on provisional ballots, a case that could have restricted how much leeway state courts have to interpret federal election rules. During the 2024 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said voters should be able to cast provisional ballots if they failed to encase an absentee ballot in the required secrecy sleeve. State and national Republicans argued that would give voters an 'unauthorized do-over' for 'naked ballots' or for other mistakes on mail-in votes. And they said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision usurped the power the Constitution gives state legislatures to set federal election rules. In November, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the GOP's emergency request to intervene as ballots were being cast. The Republican National Committee said the justices should decide the issue now because they can do so without worrying whether their decision would affect an ongoing election. Related: Supreme Court to decide if challenge to Illinois' grace period for mail-in ballots can proceed Pennsylvania Democrats countered that the 2024 ruling by the state supreme court was consistent with the text of state election law and with the intent of the legislators who set the rules. There's no good reason, Democrats said, for the Supreme Court to review what was a routine interpretation of a state law. Getting involved would invite appeals in 'any and every state-law election case," lawyers for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party told the justices. 'That is not a regime the Court should foster,' they wrote. The case is the second about election law the court agreed to hear next term. They will also decide whether a GOP congressman can challenge Illinois' decision to count mail-in ballots that are cast, but not received, before the end of Election Day.
