election law Archives - Page 6 of 6 - Common Sense with Paul Jacob

It’s official.

Well, it was already official because it was Pennsylvania law. And because the U.S. Supreme Court had confirmed it.

What is it? Election officials may not count mail-in ballots that are undated or incorrectly dated.

Official, yes, but now even more official.

On November 1, a week before the election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that yes, election officials must follow Pennsylvania election law that says you can’t count undated or incorrectly dated ballots.

A voter who mails in a ballot is obliged to sign and date the outer envelope before sending it off. The court orders election officials to “refrain from counting any absentee and mail-in ballots received for the November 8, 2022, general election that are contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes.”

The ruling was issued in response to litigation initiated by the Republican Party, which has launched a slew of lawsuits around the country to combat shady election practices.

The court’s clarification is important. A problem loomed over the upcoming election. Pennsylvania’s secretary of state had been giving the go-ahead for officials to count ballots whether they’re dated properly or not . . . and to heck with election law and the SCOTUS. Until the ruling, county officials throughout Pennsylvania lacked consistent policies about how to handle bungled ballots.

Of course, when reasonable election rules are ignored, it’s easier to commit election fraud — notwithstanding the disingenuous claim advanced by some proponents of lackadaisical election procedures that fraud is either a vanishingly small problem or does not exist at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Is the Election Over?

The election is weeks away, but a new report from the non-partisan Center for Voting & Democracy picks the winners in every congressional race. In the past, their accuracy has been astounding.

In 1997, 18 months prior to the ’98 elections, leaders of the Center predicted 340 congressional races with incumbents and 21 open seats where there was no incumbent. The results? They were right in 339 out of the 340 incumbent races, or 99.7 percent. In open seats it wasn’t quite as easy, but they were right in 19 out of 21, or 90 percent.

How do they do it? They look at the breakdown of voters by party affiliation. You see, one of the most serious problems we face in creating a competitive electoral system is gerrymandering. This is the process whereby state legislatures draw the political boundaries. It allows politicians to pick their voters before voters can choose them. Add to that the awesome power of incumbency, which scares off competition, and you can see this is not exactly crystal-ball gazing.

The courts have struck down districts drawn to get a certain racial outcome, but have turned a blind eye to districts that arbitrarily favor one party over another. The solution to incumbents monopolizing our elections is term limits. But another key factor in promoting democracy is to stop the politicians from drawing rigged districts that squelch competition.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.