U.S. Supreme Court backs Republican in Pennsylvania ballots case

WASHINGTON, Oct 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with an unsuccessful Republican candidate for a judgeship in Pennsylvania and threw out a lower court's ruling that had allowed the counting of mail-in ballots in the race that he had sought to exclude because voters neglected to write the date on them.

The justices vacated the ruling by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as requested by David Ritter, who lost his 2021 bid for a spot on the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas to a Democratic rival by five votes after 257 absentee ballots without date notations were counted.

The high court's action means that the 3rd Circuit ruling cannot be used as a precedent in the three states covered by this regional federal appellate court - Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware - to allow the counting of ballots with minor flaws such as the voter failing to fill in the date. Vacating the ruling does not change Ritter's loss in his race.

The 3rd Circuit had ruled that invalidating the undated ballots would violate a provision of a landmark 1964 federal law called the Civil Rights Act aimed at ensuring that minor ballot errors do not deny someone the right to vote.

Under Pennsylvania law, voters are required to write the date on the outer envelope of a mail-in ballot. The 3rd Circuit found that the requirement is "immaterial" to determining their qualifications as voters.

In his appeal, Ritter argued that mail-in ballot rules improve election administration and deter fraud.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June denied Ritter's bid to block the counting of the undated ballots. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from that decision. Alito wrote that the 3rd Circuit ruling "could well affect the outcome" of elections this year. Voters go to the polls on Nov. 8 in midterm elections in which Republicans are seeking to seize control of Congress from the Democrats.

Ritter told the Supreme Court that unless the 3rd Circuit ruling was wiped off the books, it would allow undated mail-in ballots to be counted in future elections in Pennsylvania and would "threaten to invalidate countless regulations of mail-in voting" nationwide. Pennsylvania Republican legislators echoed Ritter's warning.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

The Civil Rights Act provision at issue prohibits officials from disqualifying a voter's ballot for an error that is not "material" to determining whether the person was qualified to vote, such as their age or citizenship. The law targeted practices common in Southern states during the era of racial segregation that used minor ballot mistakes to block Black people from voting.

Numerous Republican-led states have enacted tougher voting rules, including for mail-in ballots, in the wake of Republican Donald Trump's presidential re-election loss in 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump has made false claims that the election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud. More Democratic voters than Republicans cast votes by mail in the 2020 election.

In Pennsylvania, there is a closely watched U.S. Senate race between Republican Mehmet Oz and Democrat John Fetterman that could help determine which party controls that chamber.

The May ruling by the 3rd Circuit came in a lawsuit by several elderly Democratic and Republican voters upset that their votes would not be counted for neglecting to write the date on the mail-in ballot envelope - what they called a "meaningless technicality."

Pennsylvania Republican legislators in a filing to the Supreme Court said the 3rd Circuit's ruling threatened an orderly election in November. A number of conservative groups active in voting issues also urged the justices to vacate the 3rd Circuit's ruling.

The 3rd Circuit's rulings also apply to the U.S. Virgin Islands territory.

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

NoobSalad41 on October 11st, 2022 at 20:11 UTC »

This is not a good article at all, as it both fails to link to the Court’s order and implies that the Court made a ruling on the merits.

Here’s a link to the case docket, with the order at the bottom:

Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950). Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

The trial court found in Ritter’s favor that the un-postmarked ballots should not be counted, but the Third Circuit reversed and held that they should be counted.

The Supreme Court has now vacated the Third Circuit decision against Ritter based on the doctrine of Munsingwear Vacatur, which holds that (as a general rule) a lower court decision should be vacated when the case becomes moot during the appellate process through no fault of the losing party. Otherwise, a party would be subject to an order against its interests without having the right to appeal. Thus, while the case presented a live controversy in the district court and during the Third Circuit appeal, the case is now moot (through no fault of Ritter).

Everybody agrees the case is currently moot, as the votes have been counted, the election has been certified, and Ritter’s opponent has been seated.

From reading one of the response briefs, it appears that the prevailing party disputes that the mootness occurred through no fault of the losing party, as Ritter conceded the election prior to certification. Therefore, they argue that his voluntary decision to concede the election mooted the case.

Ritter’s Reply argues that even if he had appealed to the Supreme Court right away, the case wouldn’t have been heard in time to avoid mootness, and that the certification of the election results was legally required to occur when it did, regardless of whether or not he conceded the election. He also notes the irony that the respondent’s position appears to be that if Ritter wanted Munsingwear vacatur due to the mootness of the case, he should have continued to object to the election results and refused to concede, even after he lost in court:

First, Respondents say that Ritter could have prevented mootness by “petition[ing] for a recount” and then suing in court to “suspend” certification. On what grounds? If he tried relitigating the undated ballots, his lawsuit would have been dismissed. See Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309, 313 (Pa. 1995) (“Res judicata ... bars a later action on all or part of the claim which was the subject of the first action.”). Other than that, Ritter had no meaningful issue to raise with the final count. Respondents’ suggestion that Ritter should have continued challenging the election only as a “delay” tactic is shocking.

Second, Respondents say that Ritter could have prevented mootness by petitioning for certiorari between June 9 (when this Court denied his emergency stay application) and June 27 (when Lehigh County certified the election). But as Respondents know, that petition wouldn’t have been considered by this Court until September 28, three months too late. Even if Ritter’s case was highly expedited, it still could not have been decided, or even argued, before the election was certified on June 27.

The Supreme Court agreed with Ritter by a 7-2 vote, and vacated the lower court’s finding that the unpostmarked ballots should be counted. Notably, the Coirt didn’t say that they shouldn’t be counted; it simply erased the Third Circuit opinion, as if this whole litigation had never happened.

AxG88 on October 11st, 2022 at 19:43 UTC »

are absentee ballots automatically mail-in ballots?

upv395 on October 11st, 2022 at 19:27 UTC »

If they are mailed, isn’t there a postmarked date? Why then does writing the date on the exterior matter? Go by the postmark