OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made a significant ruling regarding the use of mail-in ballots before the 2024 election. Without explanation, the justices rejected a case that alleged a “crisis of confidence” in Oregon’s long-standing mail-in ballot system.
The state implemented universal mail-in ballots in 2000, following approval by residents in a 1998 referendum. The plaintiffs argued that each “phantom vote” cast undermines a legitimate vote and sought to have the court dismantle the state’s mail-in voting system.
The district court dismissed the lawsuit last summer, and the plaintiffs then appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also dismissed the case last December.
“Plaintiffs do not allege that their votes were not counted, nor do they identify with sufficient particularity how any given election in Oregon was fraudulently manipulated through the vote-by-mail or computerized tabulation systems,” the three-judge panel wrote. “Indeed, plaintiffs concede that they do not know whether Oregon elections are fraudulently manipulated at all. Plaintiffs allege only that they suffer a ‘crisis of confidence’ in Oregon’s voting systems, which is the same ‘speculative’ grievance that we found insufficient to confer standing in Lake.”
The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals recently made a decision that could have a significant impact on election results in Pennsylvania and other battleground states. This decision was a win for Republicans who have been advocating for measures to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
The court ruled in favor of the Republican National Committee (RNC) regarding signature verification for mail-in voting in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the case revolved around whether mail-in ballots with an incorrect or missing date under the voter’s signature should be counted.
Democrats argued that the Materiality Provision, as outlined in Section (a)(2)(B) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, should apply. They asserted that the ballots should be counted, citing the provision’s prohibition of denying the right to vote due to an “error or omission” on paperwork related to voting, as long as the mistake is not material in determining the voter’s qualification.
The RNC responded by contending that enforcing the date requirement on ballots “does not impinge on the right to vote” because the Materiality Provision “only prohibits immaterial requirements affecting the qualification and registration of a voter,” not other, more specific requirements for casting a ballot, The Daily Wire reported.
All three of the appeals court judges were appointed by Democrats; two of the three agreed with Republicans, writing, in part:
States have separate bodies of rules for separate stages of the voting process. One stage, voter qualification, deals with who votes. To register and thus be authorized to vote, applicants must follow prescribed steps and meet certain requirements. It’s like obtaining a license to drive. Another stage deals with how ballots are cast by those previously authorized to vote, which is governed by a different set of rules. To cast a ballot that is valid and will be counted, all qualified voters must abide by certain requirements, just like those authorized to drive must obey the State’s traffic laws like everyone else.
The Materiality Provision is an important federal overlay on state election requirements during the “who” stage: voter qualification. It prohibits States from denying an applicant the right to vote based on an error or omission in paperwork involving his application if that mistake is immaterial in determining whether he is qualified to vote. That is, it is triggered when conduct or laws restrict who may vote. But it leaves it to the States to decide how qualified voters must cast a valid ballot. Pennsylvania has made one such rule—the date requirement—mandatory. The federal Materiality Provision, in our view, does not interfere.
