I know, I know we are on lemmy, where all judges are wrong and evil, but this actually seems pretty cut and dry.
Act No. 320 of 1937 (“Pennsylvania Election Code”). Section 1306-D:
(a) General rule.–At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o’clock P.M. the day of the primary or election, the mail-in elector shall, in secret, proceed to mark the ballot only in black lead pencil, indelible pencil or blue, black or blue-black ink, in fountain pen or ball point pen, and then fold the ballot, enclose and securely seal the same in the envelope on which is printed, stamped or endorsed “Official Election Ballot.” This envelope shall then be placed in the second one, on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, and the address of the elector’s county board of election and the local election district of the elector. The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.
Abridged:
At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o’clock P.M. the day of the primary or election the mail-in elector shall […] then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.
The “correct date” is any date before or on the day of the election, according to the code. A judge reads and interprets the written law, and this seems like a simple read.
The counter argument to the apparently unanimous reading of the law by all parties presented in court hinged on: "Pennsylvania’s constitution, which says that elections in the state ‘shall be free and equal’ " making the law itself unconstitutional, which I’m not surprised wasn’t very persuasive. Ballot envelopes without written dates were presumably treated equally (as opposed to being treated differently based on the vote cast) and the state didn’t interfere with the ability to fill out the date. The rules were laid down and everyone who followed them had their vote counted equally.
I can already hear people in the comments screaming about how they don’t like it. The standards for the mail-in ballots have been there since 1937 and nobody had a problem with them until right this moment when it looked like letting them slide might flip a close election. If you still don’t like them, pressure the legislature, not the judges. There’s not a ton of wiggle room in how to read the code.
If judges didn’t want to be looked at with suspicion, then they should stop collectively consenting to dipshit interpretations of the law. It might not be so in this particular instance, but it popped up a pretty convenient time, politically speaking.
I know, I know we are on lemmy, where all judges are wrong and evil, but this actually seems pretty cut and dry.
Act No. 320 of 1937 (“Pennsylvania Election Code”). Section 1306-D:
Abridged:
The “correct date” is any date before or on the day of the election, according to the code. A judge reads and interprets the written law, and this seems like a simple read.
The counter argument to the apparently unanimous reading of the law by all parties presented in court hinged on: "Pennsylvania’s constitution, which says that elections in the state ‘shall be free and equal’ " making the law itself unconstitutional, which I’m not surprised wasn’t very persuasive. Ballot envelopes without written dates were presumably treated equally (as opposed to being treated differently based on the vote cast) and the state didn’t interfere with the ability to fill out the date. The rules were laid down and everyone who followed them had their vote counted equally.
I can already hear people in the comments screaming about how they don’t like it. The standards for the mail-in ballots have been there since 1937 and nobody had a problem with them until right this moment when it looked like letting them slide might flip a close election. If you still don’t like them, pressure the legislature, not the judges. There’s not a ton of wiggle room in how to read the code.
If judges didn’t want to be looked at with suspicion, then they should stop collectively consenting to dipshit interpretations of the law. It might not be so in this particular instance, but it popped up a pretty convenient time, politically speaking.