Contested provisional ballots in Pennsylvania can count, SCOTUS says

An emergency order by the nation’s highest court Friday could set a precedent for the state’s election officials to count potentially thousands of contested provisional ballots that were cast throughout the state. Those ballots were cast by voters who had previously sent mail-in ballots that were rejected due to technicalities.

Why were the initial mail-in ballots rejected? There are many reasons why a mail-in ballot can be rejected. The legal case brought to the Supreme Court concerned two voters who incorrectly completed their mail-in ballots, according to court documents. Those two voters failed to properly enclose their ballots in the provided secrecy envelopes before mailing them in. As a result, after their ballots were processed, they were notified by email that their ballots would not be counted. Instead, they were invited to visit their polling location and cast a provisional ballot.

What’s the issue with the provisional ballots? The Republican National Committee sided with the state’s election board which argued that state law makes no allowance for Pennsylvania to offer provisional ballots to voters whose previous mail-in ballots were disqualified due to improper preparation. Attorneys for two voters in the case argued that a refusal to count their votes was a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the state’s election code. Though only two voters were party to the case, the outcome could set a precedent affecting thousands of votes in the state.

A state trial court in August issued an opinion siding with the state’s board of elections, ruling that the provisional ballots could not be counted. But late last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that although the mail-in ballots were properly disregarded, the state board of elections must count the provisional ballots.

What did the Supreme Court’s emergency order decide? The Supreme Court agreed that the provisional ballots must be counted. In the opinion, Justice Samuel Alito admitted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of state election law was controversial. But he pointed out that the case only affected two voters and election officials in one small county. Alito went on to acknowledge the Republican National Committee’s fears that election officials could apply the ruling in other counties throughout the state. But, he wrote, the election officials were not required to apply the ruling elsewhere. The high court could not prevent them from taking that action if they so chose, he wrote.

Dig deeper: Check out WORLD’s Election Center.