241 A.3d 1058
Pa.2020Background
- The Trump Campaign challenged thousands of ballots (Philadelphia: 8,329; Allegheny: 2,349) that were signed by qualified electors and timely received but lacked one or more handwritten items on the outer-envelope declaration (name, address, and/or date); no fraud was alleged.
- Philadelphia and Allegheny county boards approved counting these ballots; the respective Courts of Common Pleas upheld those decisions. The Commonwealth Court reversed the Allegheny decision; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted extraordinary jurisdiction and consolidated the cases.
- Statutory text at issue: 25 P.S. §§ 3146.6(a) and 3150.16(a) instruct the voter to “fill out, date, and sign” the declaration on the outer envelope; the Secretary of the Commonwealth prescribes the envelope form (including a preprinted name/address label and a bar code linked to the SURE voter file).
- The Secretary issued guidance (Sept. 11 and Sept. 28, 2020) about envelope examination; the guidance contained inconsistent language about whether undated/unfilled envelopes must be set aside. The Court declined to treat guidance as controlling.
- Ballots at issue were processed via the SURE system and date-stamped on receipt, providing an objective record of timeliness and identity linkage; the Court emphasized these administrative safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Campaign / Ziccarelli) | Defendant's Argument (Boards / DNC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are ballots signed but missing a handwritten name or address on the declaration invalid? | "Shall fill out" is mandatory; omission makes ballot void. | Name/address blanks are administrative; preprinted label + SURE matching make omissions minor/directory. | Omitting handwritten name/address is directory/immaterial given label and SURE linkage; ballots may be counted. |
| Are ballots signed but undated on the declaration invalid? | "Shall ... date" is mandatory; undated declarations must be set aside. | Date is redundant; receipt stamp and SURE show timeliness; omission is a minor/directory defect. | Date requirement is directory; an undated but signed envelope is sufficient where receipt time and SURE confirm timeliness. |
| Does Secretary of Commonwealth guidance control whether such ballots must be set aside? | (Some parties invoked guidance to support setting aside.) | Boards/DNC pointed to guidance supporting not setting aside in some forms. | Department guidance is not controlling; statutory text and judicial interpretation govern; conflicting guidance does not nullify statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020) (framework for distinguishing mandatory vs. directory Election Code requirements; secrecy envelope held mandatory)
- Shambach v. Bickhart, 845 A.2d 793 (Pa. 2004) (minor irregularities should not automatically disenfranchise voters)
- In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 (Appeal of John Pierce), 843 A.2d 1223 (Pa. 2004) (in‑person delivery requirement treated as mandatory to prevent fraud)
- In re Luzerne Cnty. Return Bd. (Appeal of Elmer B. Weiskerger), 290 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1972) (technical defects such as wrong ink color treated as directory)
- Appeal of Gallagher, 41 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1945) (presumption in favor of saving ballots when reasonably possible)
- In re Scroggin, 237 A.3d 1006 (Pa. 2020) (agency guidance cannot override Election Code text)