Pennsylvania mail-in ballots with flawed dates on envelopes can be thrown out, court rules
- Pennsylvania voters may lose their mail-in ballots if they do not write accurate dates on envelopes, as ruled by the state Supreme Court, impacting the presidential race.
- The high court decided a lower court should not have addressed the case since it involved only two counties instead of all 67.
- Over 10,000 ballots could be rejected in the upcoming election for incorrect envelope dates, potentially influencing the presidential outcome in Pennsylvania.
69 Articles
69 Articles
PA Supreme Court tosses ruling on incorrectly dated mail ballots – Metro Philadelphia
Mail-in ballots with missing or incorrect handwritten dates may not be counted in November’s presidential election in Pennsylvania, potentially affecting thousands of votes in a critical swing state. Two weeks after an appeals court ordered that elections officials should tabulate ballots with date errors, the state Supreme Court threw out that decision Friday, Sept. 13, on procedural grounds. Attorneys representing the 10 civic engagement group…


PA Supreme Court Ruling Sharpens Election Integrity Rules
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules to Disqualify Undated, Misdated Mail-In Ballots
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision on Sept. 13 that upholds a requirement in the key battleground state that voters must include accurate dates on the exterior envelopes of their mail-in ballots for the votes to be counted. The split 4–3 ruling vacates a previous Commonwealth Court decision that had halted enforcement of the legal requirement under Pennsylvania law that disqualified mail-in ballots if they were undated or featured …

Pennsylvania mail-in ballots without correct dates will not be counted, court rules
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Friday that mail-in ballots without the correct dates on envelopes cannot be counted in elections, a decision which could prove crucial in this year’s presidential election where 19 electoral college votes are up for grabs. The state’s high court ruled on procedural grounds, saying a lower court that found the mandate unenforceable should not have taken up the case because it did not draw in the election boar…
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 53% of the sources lean Right
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
Ownership
To view ownership data please Upgrade to Vantage