Latest news with #PennsylvaniaElectionCode
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court rejects GOP request to review Pa. provisional ballot ruling
A voter deposits a mail-in ballot at the drop box outside the Chester County Government Center on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Capital-Star/Peter Hall) 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
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Study commission majority approves Luzerne County Election Board recommendation
May 29—A Luzerne County Government Study Commission majority approved a recommendation Wednesday that would give county council authority to determine if the five-person county election board should remain composed of five citizen volunteers. The commission is drafting a revised charter that will come before voters for possible adoption in November. Its Wednesday recommendation would keep the board at five members, require at least two Democrats and two Republicans and allow the four council-appointed members to then choose someone to serve in the fifth seat — all provisions in the charter in effect since 2012. However, it would permit council to eliminate prohibitions barring county employees and elected officials from serving in these board seats. To make such a change in composition, council would have to amend its administrative code. Majority-plus-one council approval would be mandated for code changes related to the election board, which would be five votes under the commission's recommendation to reduce council from 11 to seven members. Supporters of the proposal reason that council must have flexibility to change from an all-volunteer board if the board's powers increase. Earlier this month, commission solicitor Joseph J. Khan, of Curtin & Heefner LLP, said the Pennsylvania Election Code, or Title 25, is clear that election boards have employee appointment authority and other responsibilities currently performed by the county administration. Among the board powers cited at commission meetings: hiring the election director, choosing the voting system and preparing annual election budgets. Concerns were raised about granting such control over elections to five unelected people, which could equate to a board majority of three citizens from one political party. Four of seven commission members in attendance Wednesday approved the election board recommendation: Chairman Ted Ritsick, Vice Chairman Vito Malacari, Secretary Matt Mitchell and Stephen J. Urban. Commission member Tim McGinley was absent, and Commission Treasurer Cindy Malkemes and member Mark Shaffer voted no. Ritsick said after the meeting the recommendation allows council to weigh all legal analysis to ensure the county is in compliance with election law. Wednesday's recommendation included a clause stating nothing in the charter, administrative code or any other county ordinance or resolution "shall be construed to deprive the (election) board of its powers to appoint, procure or otherwise act to protect the elective franchise as required by state law." "Rather than us taking a side, we've equipped council to handle whatever interpretation becomes a reality," Ritsick said. During Wednesday's deliberation, Shaffer and Malkemes said they won't support wording that could allow elected officials to serve on the election board. The approved recommendation also will allow any election board member to serve as board chair instead of requiring that leadership post to be held by the fifth person selected by the council-appointed board members. It also gives council authority to decide how the four-year election board terms are sequenced and reduces the period in which appointees have to be registered to the applicable political party from five to three years preceding appointment. The commission, which was convened a year ago, has now approved a proposed preamble and revisions to 11 charter articles, leaving only a transition section and final report. The transition section must spell out how some changes would be implemented, including the effective date and how council would be reduced over future election cycles. Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Luzerne County study commission plans more power for election board
May 16—Under a scenario that took shape Thursday, Luzerne County's Government Study Commission would recommend keeping a five-citizen election board but mandating that it has more power, including authority to hire the election director and prepare the annual budget request to county council. Currently, the county manager handles these duties but must consult with the board. The potential change would be similar to the structure of the county controller's or district attorney's offices, with the election board-selected director overseeing staff and reporting to the board instead of to the county manager or council. The commission is drafting a revised charter that will come before voters for possible adoption in November. Commission members will not formally vote on the election board recommendations until proposed wording is presented at an upcoming meeting. The movement to mandate more board power was largely in response to a legal overview Thursday from commission solicitor Joseph J. Khan, of Curtin & Heefner LLP. Khan said home rule counties have discretion over how election boards are structured but must comply with the Pennsylvania Election Code, or Title 25, in setting forth the duties of the board. The county's current charter was clear about the selection of election board members but did not spell out the board's duties, creating the potential for conflicting interpretations and future legal challenges, Khan told the commission. Khan said Title 25 is clear that election boards have employee appointment authority and other responsibilities. This very issue arose soon after the charter's January 2012 implementation when the county's election director was terminated by the manager, Khan said. He was referring to Leonard Piazza, who oversaw the election bureau from April 2004 until his termination in April 2012. Among other issues, Piazza's litigation argued then-county Manager Robert Lawton did not have authority to terminate him because that power is held by the election board. There was no final court decision because a council majority approved a $56,000 settlement in March 2018 to end Piazza's litigation. Under the current charter, county council appoints four of the five citizens — two Democrats and two Republicans. Those four council-appointed members then select someone of any affiliation, or no affiliation, to fill the fifth seat and also serve as chair. Prior to home rule, the county's three elected commissioners served as the election board, with the court appointing substitutes during periods when sitting commissioners appeared on the ballot. During Thursday's two-hour discussion on the matter, commission member Stephen J. Urban said he has long argued that the election board was not exercising its lawful powers, which he said include the authority to select the county's voting system. Commission members discussed different scenarios of adding council members and/or the county manager to the board as voting or non-voting members, but the majority consensus appeared to be for keeping five citizens. Regarding the fifth election board seat filled by election board members, commission Chairman Ted Ritsick said he does not believe that person should be required to fill the chairmanship seat. Ritsick said he believes more citizens would apply for the fifth seat if they did not have to serve in the leadership post. He advocated for allowing board members to select anyone to serve as chair during annual reorganization meetings. Several others voiced support for Ritsick's suggested change. Commission members Mark Shaffer, Vice Chairman Vito Malacari and Treasurer Cindy Malkemes strongly opposed the addition of council members or the county manager to the election board as voting or non-voting members. Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.
CBS News
13-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Final vote expected today on wide-ranging election reform bill in Pennsylvania House
A final vote is expected to take place today on a wide-ranging election reform bill in the Pennsylvania House. On Monday, the House chamber advanced the bill, which covers a number of different election-related topics that have been issues throughout the state. If the bill, known as the Pennsylvania Election Code, is passed, it would change state laws around ballot drop boxes, early in-person voting, pre-canvassing of ballots, voting system accuracy, and election interference penalties. Many committee members praised the bill last week with some saying it contains election recommendations from the Joint State Government Commission. Those who opposed the bill criticized it as complicated and expensive. If the bill is approved by the House chamber, it would still need to be passed by the Republican-controlled Senate.
