36 F.4th 153
3d Cir.2022Background
- In 2019 Pennsylvania expanded mail-in voting; voters receive a ballot package and must "fill out, date and sign the declaration" on the outer return envelope.
- Lehigh County received ~22,000 mail‑in/absentee ballots in a Nov. 2, 2021 county judicial election; 257 ballots were set aside because the voter did not handwrite a date next to the signature on the outer envelope (all were stamped received before the 8:00 p.m. deadline).
- The Lehigh County Board of Elections initially voted to count the disputed ballots; state courts subsequently enjoined counting some or all undated ballots.
- Five affected voters sued the LCBE in federal district court under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B)), arguing undated ballots are immaterial and must be counted; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding private plaintiffs lacked a § 1983 cause of action.
- The Third Circuit retained jurisdiction on expedited appeal, reversed the district court, and remanded with directions to order the undated ballots counted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private plaintiffs may enforce the Materiality Provision via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | § 10101(a)(2)(B) creates individual, rights‑creating language and § 10101(d) contemplates private suits; therefore enforceable under § 1983 | The statute’s enforcement scheme and the Attorney General’s enforcement authority rebut the presumption of a § 1983 remedy (relying on cases like Wisniewski) | Yes. The court held § 10101 confers an individual right presumptively enforceable under § 1983 and defendants failed to rebut that presumption. |
| Whether the date on the outside of a mail‑in ballot envelope is "material" to a voter’s qualifications under § 10101(a)(2)(B) | The handwritten date is not relevant to statutorily defined qualifications (age, citizenship, residency, felony status); ballots were timely received and counties timestamp receipts; incorrect dates were sometimes counted | The date helps verify residency/timeliness and deters fraud; a missing date could affect eligibility or future penalties | The date is immaterial. The Third Circuit held the dating provisions (25 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3146.6(a), 3150.16) do not determine voter qualifications under § 10101(a)(2)(B); undated ballots must be counted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (statute that unambiguously confers an individual right is presumptively enforceable via § 1983)
- Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) (statutory remedial scheme can preclude § 1983 where Congress provides comprehensive procedures)
- Middlesex Cnty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981) (comprehensive enforcement options may indicate Congress intended to preclude § 1983 remedies)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (2009) (analysis of overlapping remedial schemes and § 1983 enforcement)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (factors for determining when a statute creates individual rights)
- Sabree ex rel. Sabree v. Richman, 367 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2004) (once a statute creates an individual right, it is presumptively enforceable by § 1983)