PA Dem Party. v. Boockvar Pet: Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345

Background:

In 2019 the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted Act 77, creating universal mail-in voting for the first time in Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Democratic Party and others (Petitioner) filed a petition in Commonwealth Court challenging several statutory-interpretation questions arising from Act 77 and the Election Code; the Secretary asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to decide key issues before the 2020 General Election.
The petition presented five discrete issues: (I) whether county boards may use satellite locations/drop-boxes to accept hand-delivered mail-in ballots; (II) whether the mail-in/absentee received-by deadline should be extended statewide given USPS delays and COVID-19; (III) whether boards must notify voters and allow a cure for minor defects on mail ballots; (IV) whether ballots returned without the secrecy envelope (“naked ballots”) must be counted; and (V) whether the poll-watcher county-residency requirement is constitutional.
The June 2020 Primary exposed processing delays and local emergency extensions by some county courts and the Governor; the USPS General Counsel warned that Pennsylvania’s timeline risked nondelivery of ballots requested near the statutory deadline.
The Supreme Court accepted expedited briefing and issued a single-opinion disposition resolving the five legal issues before the November election.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Count I: May county boards accept hand-delivered mail-in ballots at locations other than the county board office (including drop-boxes)?	Petitioner: Section 3150.16(a) and related provisions allow boards to designate secure, accessible collection sites and drop-boxes.	Respondent: Statute requires delivery to the county board office address; satellite/unmanned drop-boxes are not authorized and risk unequal county regimes.	Court: Statute ambiguous; construed in favor of enfranchisement — county boards may accept hand-delivered mail-in ballots at locations other than the office, including drop-boxes (with appropriate safeguards).
Count II: Should the mail-in/absentee received-by deadline (8:00 p.m. Election Day) be extended statewide due to COVID-19 and USPS delays?	Petitioner: Emergency statewide extension (up to 7 days) is needed to avoid disenfranchisement given processing and delivery delays.	Respondent: Court cannot rewrite statute; extension undermines legislative scheme, deadlines, and may trigger Act 77 nonseverability; USPS concerns speculative.	Court: As-applied remedy — adopted Secretary’s recommended 3-day extension: count ballots postmarked by 8:00 p.m. Nov 3 if received by 5:00 p.m. Nov 6; ballots without legible postmark received by Nov 6 presumed mailed by Election Day unless preponderance shows otherwise.
Count III: Must boards notify voters and allow cure of minor defects on mail-in/absentee ballots (notice-and-cure through UOCAVA deadline)?	Petitioner: Multi-step mail process causes minor, fixable errors; notice-and-cure would prevent disenfranchisement and is constitutionally required.	Secretary/Respondent: No statutory or constitutional basis to require notice-and-cure; implementing it raises practical, secrecy, and administrative problems better addressed by Legislature.	Court: Denied — no statutory or constitutional basis to impose a notice-and-cure requirement; left to the Legislature.
Count IV: Are "naked ballots" (returned without the secrecy envelope) valid and must they be counted?	Petitioner (and Secretary in alignment): The Code does not expressly authorize discarding naked ballots; boards may "clothe" and count them to protect voters.	Respondent: Secrecy-envelope requirement is mandatory; failure to use it undermines ballot secrecy and requires invalidation (analogous to other mandatory provisions).	Court: Secrecy-envelope language construed as mandatory; failure to enclose the ballot in the statutorily required secrecy envelope renders the mail-in ballot invalid.
Count V: Is the poll-watcher residency requirement (must be a registered elector of the county) constitutional?	Petitioner/Secretary: Requirement is constitutional; does not burden voting rights and is rationally related to county-based election administration.	Respondent: Requirement impedes parties’ ability to appoint watchers statewide and may hinder fraud detection; challenges First/14th Amendment implications.	Court: Upheld — requirement does not burden fundamental rights and survives rational-basis review; constitutional.

Key Cases Cited

League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737 (Pa. 2018) (interpretation and scope of the Free and Equal Elections Clause)
In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 Gen. Election, 843 A.2d 1223 (Pa. 2004) (mandatory meaning of "shall" in election statutes)
In re General Election-1985, 531 A.2d 836 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (court authority to provide election relief during disasters)
Perles v. Hoffman, 213 A.2d 781 (Pa. 1965) (Election Code interpreted to secure fair elections and enfranchise voters)
Shambach v. Bickhart, 845 A.2d 793 (Pa. 2004) (election laws construed liberally in favor of voting rights)
Appeal of Weiskerger, 290 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1972) (minor irregularities should not automatically disqualify ballots)
Stilp v. Commonwealth, 905 A.2d 918 (Pa. 2006) (presumption that legislature acts within constitutional bounds; severability considerations)
West Mifflin Area Sch. Dist. v. Zahorchak, 4 A.3d 1042 (Pa. 2010) (statutory validity standard)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (states have substantial authority to regulate elections)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (framework for assessing burdens imposed by election regulations)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000) (role of state legislatures regarding appointment of presidential electors)
Donatelli v. Mitchell, 2 F.3d 508 (3d Cir. 1993) (rational-basis review where regulation does not burden a fundamental right)