Press "Enter" to skip to content

Pennsylvania’s top election officer says just 10,000 ballots were received after Nov. 3

In Pennsylvania, mail ballots are typically due by the close of polls on Election Day, regardless of when they’re postmarked. The state Supreme Court extended the deadline in the state following a Democratic-backed lawsuit, within the U.S. Postal Service.

Republicans sought to challenge the state Supreme Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court in mid-October on an emergency plea to block the state Supreme Court extension. The court then declined to take action again shortly before the election, but to return after the election to make a decision. Last week, Justice Samuel Alito ordered that those , but said they could still be tallied if they were “counted separately.”

The 10,000 ballots are immaterial to Biden’s victory in the critical battleground state. He by more than 47,000 votes, as the state continues to count ballots. Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar announced that there were approximately 94,000 provisional ballots issued to voters at the polls throughout the state on Election Day. Provisional ballots are cast when there’s a question about the voter’s eligibility. The qualifications are checked following the election and the ballot is not counted if the voter is ineligible, so not all 94,000 ballots will be counted.

“The counties have done an impressive job counting a record number of mail ballots and now are canvassing the provisional ballots, each of which must be considered individually,” Boockvar, a Democrat, said on Tuesday. “Millions of Pennsylvanians voted and made their voices heard in a free, fair and open election last week. I am so proud of the election officials and poll workers who worked tirelessly, amid a pandemic, so voters could decide this election.”

Some voting-rights experts have expressed confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately not toss out the late-arriving ballots in Pennsylvania, noting that voters followed the guidance of their election officials at the time. But the case could instead serve as a major marker for how future election-law litigation would go, they said.

For this case, “I don’t think people need to worry about this election,” Wendy Weiser, director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center, told . “I think people need to worry about the direction of the court and what it might be doing to voting rights going forward.”

Instead, the case could serve as an important marker over the “independent legislature” theory. The theory, in short, argues that the Constitution grants the power to state legislatures to set election laws, and that courts have usurped that role. Read from source….