With the 2024 election just days away, critical legal decisions have already emerged, influencing how states handle voter eligibility and the counting of mail ballots. Notably, both the US Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have issued rulings that underscore the courts’ readiness to weigh in on election-related disputes. These early interventions are setting a legal tone that could shape how contentious electoral issues are resolved this cycle.

The US Supreme Court’s decision regarding Virginia’s voter rolls has drawn significant attention. In August, Virginia undertook an audit of its voter rolls and removed individuals who had self-identified as non-citizens to the state, marking them as ineligible to vote. This proactive step aimed to ensure that only eligible voters could participate in upcoming elections. The state’s decision to remove these individuals was challenged by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which argued that removing voters within 90 days of an election violates federal law. The DOJ filed suit in October, claiming Virginia’s actions violated federal statutes meant to prevent voter roll purges close to election dates.

In response, a lower court initially sided with the DOJ, potentially compelling Virginia to reinstate individuals who had indicated their own ineligibility. However, the Supreme Court intervened, allowing Virginia to proceed with its plan. The high court’s decision sends a strong message that it may actively engage in similar election-related cases, especially where lower courts’ rulings appear to deviate from established precedents or common sense. This decision reassures states that they can take reasonable steps to maintain the accuracy of their voter rolls without immediate fear of federal overreach, provided their actions are based on verified information.

Importantly, Virginia offers same-day voter registration, enabling any eligible voter mistakenly removed from the rolls to re-register and vote on Election Day. This provision provides a safeguard against potential disenfranchisement, further strengthening the state’s position in defending its voter roll audit.

In Pennsylvania, the question of handling misdated and undated mail ballots has again found its way to the courts. The issue is one that has persisted since Pennsylvania expanded mail voting, with previous rulings asserting that ballots lacking a proper date should not be counted. This requirement was seen as a compromise between the state’s legislative bodies, balancing accessibility in mail voting with measures intended to ensure the process’s integrity.

Recently, an intermediate appeals court in Pennsylvania ruled that ballots with missing or incorrect dates should still be counted, diverging from previous rulings by both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and a federal appeals court, which had upheld the requirement for a date on mail ballots. This ruling prompted swift backlash, as it contradicted established precedent without clear justification.

The case involved a special election where counting or excluding the contested ballots would not change the outcome-raising questions about the necessity of the court’s ruling on what seemed a moot point. Nevertheless, the decision threatened to set a precedent that could impact the general election, potentially causing confusion and challenges in the handling of mail-in ballots across the state.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately intervened, issuing an emergency stay that reinstated prior guidance, confirming that undated or misdated ballots will not be counted in the general election. This decision not only upholds the legal standards established in previous cases but also respects the intent of Pennsylvania’s legislature. By enforcing the dating requirement, the court reinforced the notion that election laws, once agreed upon, should not be subject to arbitrary judicial reinterpretation.

The Pennsylvania ruling highlights a growing concern over judicial activism and the risks it poses to legislative integrity. In this case, the appeals court effectively bypassed Pennsylvania’s legislative compromise, which included a provision stating that the entire mail voting bill would be voided if any part was deemed unconstitutional. By choosing to ignore this clause, the lower court’s decision undermined the negotiated terms, setting a worrying precedent for the stability of legislative compromises. This type of judicial intervention can create uncertainty for lawmakers who rely on court consistency when crafting balanced laws, especially when addressing divisive issues like election reform.

While the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Virginia case supports a more restrained interpretation of federal authority, the Pennsylvania case underscores how state courts can sometimes overstep their role, potentially altering election processes and legislative agreements. For voters and policymakers alike, these developments underscore the importance of a judiciary that respects legislative intent while ensuring compliance with the law.

These cases demonstrate the critical role that courts may play in determining the 2024 election’s procedures and outcomes. The US Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold Virginia’s voter purge, alongside the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s reinforcement of prior rulings on mail ballot handling, suggests that higher courts may step in more frequently this election season to maintain legal consistency and prevent deviations from precedent.

As Election Day approaches, these decisions offer a glimpse into how both state and federal courts may handle disputes that arise, especially in battleground states. The implications go beyond individual cases: they set expectations for both voters and election officials, providing clarity on eligibility standards and voting requirements. For proponents of strict election laws, the rulings are a victory, supporting a more rigorous approach to voter roll maintenance and ballot verification. Meanwhile, advocates for more expansive voting rights may view these decisions as a call to action, urging greater legislative clarity or reforms to ensure that every eligible vote is counted.

Ultimately, these early rulings reflect the delicate balance courts must strike between enforcing legal standards and preserving voter accessibility. With the 2024 election shaping up to be closely contested, judicial oversight may prove pivotal in resolving disputes and maintaining public trust in the electoral process. The actions of the Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are encouraging to those who value adherence to established law, signaling a commitment to upholding rules designed to maintain order and fairness in the election.

As Election Day nears, all eyes will be on the courts to see if they continue their engagement with election-related cases, ensuring that any potential judicial deviations do not upend the processes designed to safeguard American democracy.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel