I’m a bit confused too.
So, I am assuming (maybe incorrectly) that any issue with the hand-written date may be because the ballot is dated too far ahead of when the ballots were actually mailed to the voters, or is dated after the actual election date, or the voter never wrote a date on the outside envelope.
Close to? I’d say that judgement is settled now, in the minds of millions of citizens, after the judicial branch has again and again over the last year cut Trump a break no other defendant would receive in his many trials.
I strongly disagree.
This has nothing to do with being qualified to vote. That is determined at the registration process. This has to do with counting an otherwise qualified voter’s vote.
A 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Wednesday that Pennsylvania can disregard mailed ballots that were received in time for the election but that lack a date or list an incorrect date on the outer envelope — despite all parties agreeing that election offices don’t actually use that handwritten date.
The question is, does the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights act apply only to the act of registering to vote or does it also apply to the act of voting?
I agree with the dissent that:
“…it is illogical to conclude that Congress, who was seeking to ensure that Black Americans could vote, intended to enact legislation that only allowed Black Americans to register to vote but gave no regard to whether those same individuals could actually have their votes counted once registered,”
To the statute itself you will note the words:
or other act requisite to voting
Obviously, actually voting is an “other act requisite to voting”.
Brutus in PA here:
Who gives a crap about what date is on the OUTER ENVELOPE? As long as the ballot is received before election day, the ballot should count.
Many of us here in Chester County, PA drop off our ballots at our local libraries or other official drop box locations. The official drop boxes only collect ballots during the period prescribed by law OR voters mail the ballots, which have to arrive at our County Voter Services office BEFORE election day.
How again does the outer envelope date matter in the least?
Mind boggling result from the 3rd Circuit.
? I’m confused. The majority agreed that it’s okay to deny voters the right to vote over an error that doesn’t affect their eligibility? Can you expand on your reasoning?
Yes, thanks to a 3-3 tie at SCOPA. But in practice, it seems to depend on whether the voter resides in a Blue or Red county.
Archived: https://archive.is/6vWYb
A preview of what the Putinista Party will do between now and November to cheat.
No kidding. That’s the very point. An otherwise qualified voter can’t be told they can’t vote on the basis of an immaterial error in their paperwork, but any qualified voter can still spoil their ballot and have it not get counted as a result. The statute addresses only the first situation, not the second.
And Congress does lots of illogical stuff. But in this case, it merely lacked the foresight in 1965 to foresee that ballots would be cast nearly sixty years later on mail-in ballots that would require voters to fill in some information beyond just marking which candidates the voter was voting for.
What the justice system has achieved – long ago – is to convey the sense that it is not liable to contradictions and mindless bullshit. Hence, one can be startled upon witnessing (vast quantities of) its up-is-down contradictions and mindless bullshit. Fear not: it was always thus. Eventually we might achieve the ridiculousness and evil of the current Russian system.
Careful, I’m not sure TPMers can bear another pun thread…
First rule of Republican communication, “If the truth just won’t do, lie.”
Pennsylvania can disregard mailed ballots
that were received in time for the election but…
that lack a date …
or list an incorrect date
… on the outer envelope.
So, let’s put this in context … Tuesday, November 5, 2024 is election day …
SITUATION # 1 (this is fairly clear - but stupid) - If 100 absentee ballots arrive on Friday, November 1, 2024 - and for all 100, their envelopes are perfect in every way - except - the envelopes lack a hand-written date - the envelopes are then NOT opened - the unopened envelopes with the untouched / unrecorded ballot inside - get set aside and are deemed ineligible and are NOT counted … and we can assume that the respective voters are then on record as having not voted.
… have to assume that this holds for all instances of the envelopes lack a hand-written date … meaning that even if the envelopes were postmarked with a date - the envelopes lacking the hand-written date are ruled ineligible to be counted (really absurd as it is obvious that they are fully compliant - except for the handwritten date - but they are definitely within the date requirement)
SITUATION # 2 - (this gets a bit murky) - If 100 absentee ballots arrive on Friday, November 1, 2024 - and for all 100, their envelopes are perfect in every way - except - the envelopes list an incorrect date
… what constitutes “incorrect” ?
There were 168.3 million registered voters in the USA in 2020, and 158.4 million of them cast a ballot in the presidential election. That’s 94.1% of all registered voters. Not too shabby!
As for everybody else, we continue to make it too hard to get registered, but the bigger issue is apathy among eligible, non-registered voters. Far too many voting-age citizens don’t care, don’t think it makes any difference to their lives, or just don’t think it’s worth the hassle.
I’m not so sure that’s the only interpretation.
Let’s take this one step at a time:
So, I side with the dissent that this is a needlessly crabbed reading of the law, not one compelled by the text.
Again, I disagree and think the dissent nailed it with:
“…it is illogical to conclude that Congress, who was seeking to ensure that Black Americans could vote, intended to enact legislation that only allowed Black Americans to register to vote but gave no regard to whether those same individuals could actually have their votes counted once registered,” she added.
What is illogical here is applying illogic to Congressional action. I mean to say that because Congress does “lots of illogical stuff” does not make it logical assume all Congressional are illogical or worse apply illogic to all Congressional action.
I agree, but courts regularly engage in this bit of legal fiction because the alternative is (even worse) chaos.
Just like any other voter who spoils their ballot. That’s not denying them the right to vote, it’s just not counting the vote because they fucked up the ballot.
Had Congress wanted to provide that immaterial errors in balloting don’t prevent a ballot from being counted, it needed to say so. Instead, it was focused on the very obvious issue of 1965, which was that disfavored groups of people were being denied eligibility on the basis of trivial errors in the process of registering to vote. Registering was the issue of the day, not tallying up all the secret, identical, same-day ballots.
This is crazy. Get it in front of the Supremes asap. How crazy you ask? So crazy that even the Roberts court will say it’s crazy.
It’s not crazy. The statute does not require the counting of ballots that violate the applicable balloting requirements. SCOTUS isn’t going to touch this, and even if it did it would affirm.
I’ve got some bad news to tell you…