The U.S. Supreme Court has recently issued a pivotal ruling concerning the extensive use of mail-in ballots, a matter gaining significant attention as the 2024 election approaches. In a decision that surprised many, the justices declined to hear a case challenging Oregon’s mail-in voting system, which has been in place for over two decades. The court’s refusal to hear the case was made without providing any reason, effectively upholding the lower courts’ decisions.
Oregon’s mail-in voting system, one of the oldest in the country, was adopted in 2000 after a referendum in 1998 saw voters overwhelmingly approve the measure. This system allows all registered voters to receive their ballots by mail, which they can return by mail or at designated drop-off locations. The plaintiffs in the case alleged that Oregon’s system leads to what they termed a “crisis of confidence” among voters, claiming that it could potentially allow fraudulent votes to disenfranchise legitimate ones. They sought to dismantle this system, arguing that it undermines the integrity of the electoral process.
However, their efforts were unsuccessful at every judicial level. Last summer, a district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims. The plaintiffs then took their case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In December, a three-judge panel of the appeals court also dismissed the case, stating that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate any specific instances where Oregon’s elections were fraudulently manipulated through the vote-by-mail or computerized tabulation systems. The panel noted that the plaintiffs conceded they had no evidence of actual fraud, only a general sense of distrust or lack of confidence in the system. This, the court ruled, was not enough to establish legal standing or to challenge the mail-in voting system.
In their decision, the appeals court judges wrote, “Plaintiffs do not allege that their votes were not counted, nor do they identify with sufficient particularity how any given election in Oregon was fraudulently manipulated through the vote-by-mail or computerized tabulation systems. Indeed, plaintiffs concede that they do not know whether Oregon elections are fraudulently manipulated. Plaintiffs allege only that they suffer a ‘crisis of confidence’ in Oregon’s voting systems, which is the same ‘speculative’ grievance that we found insufficient to confer standing in Lake.”
While the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case maintains the status quo in Oregon, another significant development in election law occurred in Pennsylvania. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that could have major implications for mail-in voting procedures in this key swing state. The court overturned a previous order from a federal district court, siding with the Republican National Committee (RNC) on the contentious issue of signature verification for mail-in ballots.
The Pennsylvania case revolved around whether mail-in ballots that were incorrectly dated or lacked a date entirely should be counted. Democrats argued that under the materiality provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these ballots should be counted. This provision prohibits denying the right to vote because of an “error or omission” on paperwork related to voting, provided the mistake does not affect whether the individual is qualified to vote.
The RNC, however, contended that the date requirement is a necessary rule for ensuring the integrity of the ballot-casting process and does not infringe on the right to vote. They argued that the materiality provision is intended to apply to voter qualification and registration, not to the specifics of how a ballot must be cast.
The 3rd Circuit Court agreed with the RNC’s position. The judges emphasized that election laws are divided into stages, with different rules governing voter qualification and the actual casting of ballots. While the materiality provision safeguards against disenfranchising voters based on minor errors in the qualification process, it does not apply to rules concerning how qualified voters must submit their ballots. Thus, the court upheld Pennsylvania’s requirement for dates on mail-in ballots.
In their ruling, the judges stated, “States have separate bodies of rules for separate stages of the voting process. One stage, voter qualification, deals with who votes. To register and thus be authorized to vote, applicants must follow prescribed steps and meet certain requirements. It’s like obtaining a license to drive. Another phase concerns the casting of ballots by those who have already received voting authorization, which is subject to different regulations. To cast a ballot that is valid and will be counted, all qualified voters must abide by certain requirements, just like those authorized to drive must obey the state’s traffic laws like everyone else.”
RNC Chairman Michael Whatley responded positively to the ruling, calling it a crucial victory for election integrity. He emphasized that the decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established voting rules to ensure public confidence in the electoral process. “This is a crucial victory for election integrity and voter confidence in the Keystone State and nationwide,” Whatley stated. “Pennsylvanians deserve to feel confident in the security of their mail ballots, and this 3rd Circuit ruling roundly rejects unlawful left-wing attempts to count undated or incorrectly dated mail ballots. Republicans will continue to fight and win for election integrity in courts across the country ahead of the 2024 election.”
As the nation heads toward the 2024 elections, these rulings underscore the ongoing debates and legal battles over voting procedures and election integrity. The decisions in Oregon and Pennsylvania highlight the complexities of ensuring a fair and secure electoral process while balancing the need for accessible voting options.