Republicans ask US Supreme Court to block Pennsylvania provisional ballots decision
Adds background on case, paragraphs 7-16
Pennsylvania seen as pivotal in outcome of Nov. 5 election
Republicans challenge ruling by state's highest court
Provisional ballots protect voters if eligibility is uncertain
By Andrew Chung
Oct 28 (Reuters) -Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to block a judicial decision from Pennsylvania requiring the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who make mistakes on their mail-in ballots, potentially affecting thousands of votes in the Nov. 5 presidential election.
The Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Pennsylvania asked the justices to put on hold the Oct. 23 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in favor of two Butler County voters who sought to have their provisional ballots counted after their mail-in ballots were rejected during that state's primary election for lacking secrecy envelopes.
Pennsylvania is one of a handful of closely contested states expected to decide the outcome of the presidential race between Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Republicans in their filing said that Pennsylvania's top court has undermined the state legislature's authority and changed rules too close to the election.
"This is an egregious usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority to set rules for federal elections," the Republicans wrote.
If the justices are not inclined to pause the state court's ruling in its entirety, the Republicans asked for an order segregating the provisional ballots at issue in the case, which potentially would give the U.S. Supreme Court time to review the legal dispute after the election.
Provisional ballots generally protect voters from being excluded from the voting process if their eligibility to vote is uncertain on Election Day. The vote is counted once officials confirm eligibility.
Unlike Butler County, the majority of Pennsylvania's 67 counties already counted provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in ballots are rejected.
Though the case began with two voters challenging a single county's refusal to count their provisional ballots, Republicans intervened in the case to defend the county's decision, while Democrats intervened on the side of the voters.
Republicans contend that, according to the text of Pennsylvania's election law, if a voter's absentee or mail-in ballot is properly received by 8 p.m. on Election Day but is defective, a provisional ballot may not be counted either.
Democrats said that if a mail-in ballot has a defect and cannot be counted, that person has not yet voted and a provisional ballot must be counted.
A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, saying that provisional ballots serve the "dual purpose" of preventing double voting while protecting voter's right to have one vote counted. The state constitution's voting protection does not allow for the "disenfranchisement of voters as punishment for failure to conform to the mail-in voting requirements when voters properly availed themselves of the provisional voting mechanism," the state court said.
Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to apply its 2023 ruling that allows the justices to second-guess state courts in certain cases to ensure they do not "arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections."
Republicans also asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to pause its own ruling pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review. Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, a Republican, opposed that request, noting that the litigation concerning just one county cannot be used to prevent all counties from accepting provisional ballots.
"This court should not countenance such chicanery," lawyers for Schmidt said in a filing.
Pennsylvania is one of the states where Trump and his Republican allies launched litigation during the 2020 election that he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Pennsylvania Republicans in 2020 unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court a ruling by Pennsylvania's top court ordering officials to count mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received up to three days later.
FACTBOX-Top cases before the US Supreme Court during its new term ID:nL1N3LI06A
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
免责声明: XM Group仅提供在线交易平台的执行服务和访问权限，并允许个人查看和/或使用网站或网站所提供的内容，但无意进行任何更改或扩展，也不会更改或扩展其服务和访问权限。所有访问和使用权限，将受下列条款与条例约束：(i) 条款与条例；(ii) 风险提示；以及(iii) 完整免责声明。请注意，网站所提供的所有讯息，仅限一般资讯用途。此外，XM所有在线交易平台的内容并不构成，也不能被用于任何未经授权的金融市场交易邀约和/或邀请。金融市场交易对于您的投资资本含有重大风险。
所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。
本网站上由XM和第三方供应商所提供的所有内容，包括意见、新闻、研究、分析、价格、其他资讯和第三方网站链接，皆保持不变，并作为一般市场评论所提供，而非投资性建议。所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为适用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。请确保您已阅读并完全理解，XM非独立投资研究提示和风险提示相关资讯，更多详情请点击 这里。
