[EL] Key Pa. Supreme Court ruling

Thu Sep 17 13:17:18 PDT 2020

I posted this on the blog about the PA Supreme Court decision:
I want to highlight one intriguing aspect of this decision.  The state adopted no-excuse absentee voting in a law passed in 2019, before the pandemic.  That meant that the surrounding laws were not written for the volume of absentees likely this fall.
The state-constitutional law issue emerged out of conflict between three elements:  state law that permits voters to request an absentee ballot as late as 7 days before Election Day; state law that requires those ballots to be received by 8pm on Election Night; and the US Postal Service’s representations to the Secretary of the Commonwealth – in a letter from the USPS General Counsel – it takes 2-5 days to deliver mail.
You can add those numbers up yourself:  that means there is no guarantee that a voter who lawfully requests a ballot 7 days before the election, fills it out immediately and mails it back, would have their ballot delivered by Election Night and thus be able to cast a valid vote.  Given these circumstances, the majority concluded the state constitution required PA to treat absentees as valid if received up to 3 days after Election Day.
The circumstances required 3 more days in the election calendar.  Those days could have come at the back end but they could also have come at the front end.  And three judges on the court – one a Democrat, the other two Republicans (PA has partisan judicial elections) – agreed that the current laws were unconstitutional, but that the right remedy was to capture those 3 extra days at the front end of the process.  They would have held that the state constitutional violation should have been remedied by requiring voters to request an absentee 10 days (not 7) in advance of the election, and that the court should have preserved the state law requiring receipt by 8pm Election Night.
The argument of these judges was that the number of days in advance a ballot has to be requested is fairly arbitrary.  There is nothing “magical” about 7 days in advance rather than 10.  Many states require the request to be made 10 or more days in advance, though many permit 7 days.  But this group of concurring/dissenting judges concluded that there was a more compelling legal reason for the state policy that all votes be in by Election Night – that is when the election is over.  So as between which of the two dates should be judicially changed, this group of 3 judges believe the request date, rather than the receipt date, should be changed.
I think many judges would believe that moving up the request deadline would seem like a policy choice that only the legislature could make, while moving back the receipt deadline was a more appropriate form of judicial remedy.  But whether there should be such a big perceived difference between these two options for courts is part of what makes this decision a rich one.
From a policy (not a legal) perspective, I have always been particularly concerned this election about late-counted ballots (maybe the issue won’t matter in the end, because few Pennsylvania voters will mail ballots back at the last minute).  That’s also why I thought this separate opinion for 3 judges raises such an interesting, alternative remedy.

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Breaking: Key Pa. Supreme Court ruling (another one!); my oped on AG Barr and the election

Breaking: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Extends Absentee Ballot Receipt Deadlines, Allows Drop Boxes, Limits Poll Watchers from Other PA Counties. What’s Next?<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D115348&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=4FtRaiUqNXCMH24pd0jA0H4eZI-bnudn3TxFzAixAls&e=>
Posted on September 17, 2020 10:44 am<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D115348&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=4FtRaiUqNXCMH24pd0jA0H4eZI-bnudn3TxFzAixAls&e=> by Rick Hasen<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fauthor-3D3&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=VAvngpBHIIzjPL9QdUOE_yUDRQo7PVoGTJLV0u3yA1w&e=>

Jonathan Lai<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.inquirer.com_politics_election_pennsylvania-2Dmail-2Dballot-2Ddeadlines-2Dstate-2Dsupreme-2Dcourt-2Druling-2D20200917.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=wZyUd-J2w9KF15memogkKzv6ekNyftaOIu2pJAI6mLc&e=> for the Philly Inquirer:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the state’s mail ballot deadlines on Thursday, a move that could allow tens of thousands of additional votes to be counted — and will likely draw criticism from Republicans who have argued that all votes should be received by Election Day.

State law says mail ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day, but the high court said Thursday that ballots will be counted if they are received by 5 p.m. the Friday after the Nov. 3 election. To count, ballots arriving after Election Day must either be postmarked by Nov. 3 or have no proof they were sent afterward. Ballots that arrive by the new deadline with missing or illegible postmarks would still be counted.

In addition, the court held that state election law allows counties to use drop boxes for hand delivery of mail ballots; denied requests from President Donald Trump’s campaign and others to allow poll watchers to work in counties other than the ones where they are registered; and denied a request that other people be allowed to deliver voters’ ballots.

Majority opinion<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pacourts.us_assets_opinions_Supreme_out_J-2D96-2D2020mo-2520-2D-2520104548450113066639.pdf-3Fcb-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=91Lt9hg9peTHStRaswKGLTO-VVyASWWTx0KMBJdbKvI&e=>

Concurring opinion<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pacourts.us_assets_opinions_Supreme_out_J-2D96-2D2020co-2520-2D-2520104548450113066706.pdf-3Fcb-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=5-whG04DhXVjplA7TBp9SaCKMXcnN8m_rnV-5QstJ0c&e=>

Concurring and dissenting opinion<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pacourts.us_assets_opinions_Supreme_out_J-2D96-2D2020cdo-2520-2D-2520104548450113066751.pdf-3Fcb-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=vGXHlyapaiqk1pj182uH13ZJ2dIvDV79VqSBcRTtNyw&e=>

Concurring and dissenting opinion<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pacourts.us_assets_opinions_Supreme_out_J-2D96-2D2020cdo1-2520-2D-2520104548450113066808.pdf-3Fcb-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=1YSFdOnvYBJm9iWcQ6u-LDruOfPUGGhhLIPoPXCB-To&e=>

This is litigation I’ve been following for a while, as it is among the most significant in battleground states.

This could lead to a Trump appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or, more likely, an attempt to revive federal constitutional issues in the case where the federal judge had initially abstained <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D114372&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=whfTMocHQKjNwUJN_IfU2s6n6bnSBHrfrJKlALoGmmY&e=> from deciding issues pending the state resolution of related issues.
[Share]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.addtoany.com_share-23url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Felectionlawblog.org-252F-253Fp-253D115348-26title-3DBreaking-253A-2520Pennsylvania-2520Supreme-2520Court-2520Extends-2520Absentee-2520Ballot-2520Receipt-2520Deadlines-252C-2520Allows-2520Drop-2520Boxes-252C-2520Limits-2520Poll-2520Watchers-2520from-2520Other-2520PA-2520Counties.-2520What-25E2-2580-2599s-2520Next-253F&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=dLUw2KYOUsqjiCusGgtCV78tSkV2mRaXE164n1fSEIM&e=>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=YxQ1pvxVcTRu3JYN4k9KSaVmLBJoSi80W7iJJfsGa2w&e=>

“Barr’s undermining of the election is downright dangerous”<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D115346&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=8_4E07eLP2T4n_xXX1wQhKcGqY3meVzDmJJSxFs_tC8&e=>
Posted on September 17, 2020 10:25 am<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D115346&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=8_4E07eLP2T4n_xXX1wQhKcGqY3meVzDmJJSxFs_tC8&e=> by Rick Hasen<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fauthor-3D3&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=VAvngpBHIIzjPL9QdUOE_yUDRQo7PVoGTJLV0u3yA1w&e=>

I have written this oped<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cnn.com_2020_09_17_opinions_us-2Delection-2D2020-2Dwilliam-2Dbarr-2Dundermining-2Dhasen_index.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=vsnsFxh2HJ7OM-DDPf_B3IwT6wvV0Ew3cU011vPnAtA&e=> for CNN. It begins:

By repeating false<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cnn.com_2020_07_29_politics_barr-2Dvoter-2Dfraud-2Dfact-2Dcheck-2Dforeign-2Dcountries_index.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=DmW4P2uzA5sN3V6amSMm2Jf5hHVFE5H-CMuzHIKmBu4&e=> and misleading<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cnn.com_2020_09_11_politics_barr-2Dsecret-2Dvote-2Dfact-2Dcheck_index.html-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dfeedburner-26utm-5Fmedium-3Dfeed-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DFeed-253A-2Brss-252Fcnn-5Fallpolitics-2B-2528RSS-253A-2BCNN-2B-2D-2BPolitics-2529&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=ZhJmB0_M3kMFkQu4qIvj_6_xI2v90wLZZIrw89JCD1M&e=> statements about the potential for voter fraud and post-election violence, Attorney General William Barr has stepped out of his role as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and marred the 2020 elections. This parroting of President Donald Trump’s unsupported rhetoric is irresponsible and dangerous, turning the job of the Department of Justice as the protector of voting rights on its head.

This sowing of doubt in the integrity of our elections could be even worse than Barr’s other recent comments<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cnn.com_2020_09_16_politics_barr-2Djustice-2Ddepartment-2Dspeech_index.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=_heZIEg1fYUujR-j0D00oLdKgl5iiMuaSSESPv0cXhc&e=> comparing prosecutors to children, equating Covid-19 health restrictions to slavery and suggesting that some political protesters should be charged<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cnn.com_2020_09_16_politics_barr-2Dsedition_index.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=S4WJkPm6Xjo63PADOS_lG845mW5nrtq5jt2Kr7fBGDw&e=> with “sedition.”

It is perhaps too much to expect the attorney general of the United States to condemn Trump’s repeated<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_opinions_2020_09_15_trump-2Djust-2Drepeated-2Dhis-2Dugliest-2Dclaim-2Dabout-2Delection-2Dwhy-2Disnt-2Dit-2Dbigger-2Dnews_&d=DwMGaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS9yAL0Jw_xnDiPuZjNR4EDIQ&r=gUdX-8KDBIsgcOtDiOaBvRJ12J2CaIbJ9ZLcvI5dD5g&m=SrM0NFb6VFBJGSoVfevSkB_5UxJ0AwLLe4fS3K0LQkc&s=4MibV45D_05ziouVnpcAl591yFiTIZ9KanCs03xp3GY&e=> and unsupported comments<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_MattGertz_status_1305845345910431746&d=DwMGaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS9yAL0Jw_xnDiPuZjNR4EDIQ&r=gUdX-8KDBIsgcOtDiOaBvRJ12J2CaIbJ9ZLcvI5dD5g&m=SrM0NFb6VFBJGSoVfevSkB_5UxJ0AwLLe4fS3K0LQkc&s=e-HzucmKwTYFOR49u5topkkKG_KngTfIrYhXDKMdBfY&e=> that the only way he can lose the upcoming election against his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, is if the election is “rigged.” A responsible attorney general, who would put the interests of the country over that of the president or party, would surely come out and say that Trump’s remarks cross a line.The remarks have inspired people such as Roger Stone (a Trump ally whose crimes including lying to Congress and whose sentence Trump recently commuted<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cnn.com_2020_07_10_politics_trump-2Dstone-2Dprison-2Dclemency_index.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=44GmNsAtA2eDXC0qp-4WBZCwPlx01gPToixaEqvSfQs&e=>) to say that the President should declare martial law, seize ballots in Nevada and do whatever it takes to stay in power following the election.

But Barr has said <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.chicagotribune.com_columns_john-2Dkass_ct-2Dattorney-2Dgeneral-2Dwilliam-2Dbarr-2Dchicago-2Dkass-2D20200911-2Dxbpfeq5wj5hybffu5e7aiwuzoq-2Dstory.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS9yAL0Jw_xnDiPuZjNR4EDIQ&r=gUdX-8KDBIsgcOtDiOaBvRJ12J2CaIbJ9ZLcvI5dD5g&m=SrM0NFb6VFBJGSoVfevSkB_5UxJ0AwLLe4fS3K0LQkc&s=sSRDRAOCRjj_JNjTUxMoH6NMIurbnOmIej7DTbl3WBU&e=> it is “bulls–t” and “crap” to suggest that if the President loses he would stay in office and seize power, calling it “projection” by the left aimed at “creating an incendiary situation where there will be loss of confidence in the vote.”

If anyone is causing people to lose confidence in the fairness of the vote, it is Barr himself.
[Share]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.addtoany.com_share-23url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Felectionlawblog.org-252F-253Fp-253D115346-26title-3D-25E2-2580-259CBarr-25E2-2580-2599s-2520undermining-2520of-2520the-2520election-2520is-2520downright-2520dangerous-25E2-2580-259D&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=8hlm_qKgObmrbncr8rZPiU4NV5S6dwnxO7Y9tooFko0&e=>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D8&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=7agtnJSJk4WKmeiTTrZJPUtY64wWDxB7JwdEnuy3e_0&e=>

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=F_gkjHo2SY7cYUYJP_gCYDtqH0d8N9CiVn30BH4h04k&e=>
http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=tAR9AnleEsZRyk2cAPUzOi_tIC8nlzP0MyeaG1C7y-I&s=gJ4poM6wf9_FbQJz1z5cgIAE_MrTDkcIdwEsimZKutM&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200917/ebff4be5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200917/ebff4be5/attachment.png>