141 S.Ct. 1
U.S.2020Background
- Pennsylvania’s 2019 Act 77 allowed universal mail-in voting but unambiguously required mailed ballots to be received by 8:00 p.m. on election day and included a severability clause tied to that deadline.
- The Pennsylvania Legislature did not change that receipt deadline in March 2020 pandemic-related legislation.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (4–3) ruled that ballots postmarked by election day and received within three days thereafter (and ballots with no/illegible postmark received by that date) are timely, explicitly overruling the statutory receipt deadline on state-constitutional grounds.
- Pennsylvania Republican Party and state Senate leaders sought a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court; the stay was denied by an equally divided Court vote.
- Petitioners then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite certiorari and decide the constitutional question before the election; the Court denied the motion to expedite but left the petition pending for possible later resolution on an accelerated schedule.
- The Court noted the parties’ agreement that segregating ballots received after 8:00 p.m. on election day would be a reasonable targeted remedy; the Pennsylvania Secretary issued guidance directing counties to segregate ballots received between 8:00 p.m. Nov. 3 and 5:00 p.m. Nov. 6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA Supreme Court lawfully changed the statutory mail‑ballot receipt deadline | State court exceeded authority and invalidly altered legislature’s rule for federal elections | State court acted pursuant to state Free and Equal Elections Clause to protect voters in emergency | Not decided on merits; motion to expedite denied; petition remains pending |
| Whether state court action violates federal Constitution (Art. I §4; Art. II §1) by usurping legislature’s power over federal‑election rules | State courts cannot override legislature’s exclusive authority to set federal‑election rules | State constitutional powers permit courts to ensure fair elections in emergencies | Justice Alito said strong likelihood of violation, but Court lacked time to resolve before election |
| Whether this Court should stay the state‑court decision pending review | Stay needed to prevent post‑election confusion and preserve statutory scheme | Respondents acknowledged national importance and sought review but did not obtain stay | Earlier stay application was denied by an equally divided Court |
| Whether ballots received after election day should be segregated pending review | Segregation is a limited, targeted remedy to preserve relief if state decision is overturned | Respondents agree segregation appropriate; state court had rejected petitioners’ request | Court did not order segregation but noted Secretary’s guidance to segregate; petitioners may apply to this Court if dissatisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (2000) (per curiam) (states’ rules for federal elections are governed by legislatures under Art. I §4 and Art. II §1)