Yay more voter suppression
Seriously tho what the fuck does that even mean? Who decides what the "correct date" is?
Pennsylvania's high court sides with Republicans on misdated mail ballots
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/18/nx-s1-5195524/pennsylvania-election-ballots-senate-recount
5 Comments
themeatbridge@lemmy.world · 56 pts · 1y
There is a line for the date next to the signature. It's supposed to be the date it was signed. Some people mistakenly put their birthdate. Some people use the European format. Some people leave it blank. And then sometimes people just fuck up for no particular reason and put the wrong month or year.
None of these errors should invalidate their vote.
goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 26 pts · 1y
It does seem pretty safe to assume that the ballot was signed sometime between the time it was printed and the date it was postmarked which, given the fast-paced and tumultuous nature of American politics, surely cannot be that wide of a window. And if the purpose is to somehow catch people submitting ballots after the cutoff date, surely one would expect a wouldbe election fraudster to lose no sleep in also falsifying an earlier date, making one wonder why this information is all that pertinent to begin with.
Now, a more cynical person might assume that this was just another one of those little traps specifically engineered to attract common mistakes (knowing full well that some of us are still putting the year down as "2015" because goddammit, what the hell time is it?) which can then be selectively enforced depending on whether or not you want to invalidate a large swath of votes. But I mean, surely our very trustworthy elected officials would never do such a thing...
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 13 pts · 1y
We do as a collective states/country try to make voting hard to do, while declaring it as one of the fundamental rights and duties of citizens. Some things should invalidate a vote, others seem there as hoops to jump through to restrict them while not being obviously relevant to legitimacy. Even going back to the shitshow of 2000 with hanging chads and how ridiculous some of the "experts" would carry things to argue the "intent" of a voter.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1y
penquin@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 1y
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
I know, I know we are on lemmy, where all judges are wrong and evil, but this actually seems pretty cut and dry.
Act No. 320 of 1937 ("Pennsylvania Election Code"). Section 1306-D:
Abridged:
The "correct date" is any date before or on the day of the election, according to the code. A judge reads and interprets the written law, and this seems like a simple read.
The counter argument to the apparently unanimous reading of the law by all parties presented in court hinged on: "Pennsylvania's constitution, which says that elections in the state 'shall be free and equal' " making the law itself unconstitutional, which I'm not surprised wasn't very persuasive. Ballot envelopes without written dates were presumably treated equally (as opposed to being treated differently based on the vote cast) and the state didn't interfere with the ability to fill out the date. The rules were laid down and everyone who followed them had their vote counted equally.
I can already hear people in the comments screaming about how they don't like it. The standards for the mail-in ballots have been there since 1937 and nobody had a problem with them until right this moment when it looked like letting them slide might flip a close election. If you still don't like them, pressure the legislature, not the judges. There's not a ton of wiggle room in how to read the code.
Nosavingthrow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
If judges didn't want to be looked at with suspicion, then they should stop collectively consenting to dipshit interpretations of the law. It might not be so in this particular instance, but it popped up a pretty convenient time, politically speaking.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1y