ts Before Midterms: Election Fights

Lawyers are still arguing over the rules for the casting and counting votes with Election Day right around the corner.

The courts have been busy defining and interpreting the landscape of election laws and regulations in different battleground states, from the status of undated mailin ballots to legality of drop boxes and constitutionality of same day registration statutes.

Here are some of the most important examples:

PENNSYLVANIA A ruling by the 3 ^rd U.S. Supreme Court was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court . Circuit Court of Appeals in Ritter v. Migliori. The 3 ^rd circuit ruled that a Pennsylvania law that required voters to write the date on an absentee ballot was in violation of federal civil rights laws.

The Supreme Court issued a one-paragraph decision, vacating the decision and remanding the case to lower courts with instructions to dismiss. After three justices had stated that the 3 ^rd Circuit’s decision on the merits was “very unlikely wrong” because it misunderstood federal law, this was done.

The Supreme Court had ruled that the acting secretary of Pennsylvania was not allowed to issue guidance to local registrars directing them to continue to count undated votes. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit directly against the secretary at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This unusual procedural maneuver is quite unusual. The court ruled against the secretary on Tuesday in split decision. It directed registrars to not count such ballots, but to “segregate & preserve” them.

DELAWARE The state Supreme Court ruled that the no-fault absentee voting and same-day voter registration laws violate the state’s constitution in Higgin v. Delaware Department of Elections.

The court ruled that the vote by mail legislation ” impermissibly expanded the categories for absentee voters identified” in state constitution. Absentee voting is only allowed when registered voters are unable to vote on Election Day due to a variety listed reasons such as disability, public service, religious tenets, and others.

The court struck down the legislation. It made clear that the court would need to amend the constitution to change the circumstances in which an absentee vote can be used, or implement same-day registration.

WISCONSIN The state Supreme Court decided against using drop boxes for absentee votes. It ruled that a ballot must either be returned by mail, or personally delivered to the clerk. Although absentee ballots can be returned by mail under state law, the court ruled that drop boxes for ballots were not mailboxes as stated in the statute.

Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is an invalidation of guidance issued by the elections commission that authorized drop boxes. According to the court, the commission was not authorized to do so.

A Waukesha County judge issued a similar injunction to overturn another Wisconsin Elections Commission decision. It stated that election officials were prohibited by adding or changing information to incomplete absentee votes.

According to court order, clerks are not allowed to return completed ballots to voters.

GEORGIA :In a suit filed in Georgia by Fair Fight Action four years ago, a liberal organization founded and run by Stacey Abrams. Federal District Court Judge Steve Jones (an appointee President Barack Obama) recently tossed Abrams’ case, which alleged that Georgia’s election law amounts to voter suppression.

Jones ruled that Georgia’s absentee voting practices, oversight, maintenance, and verification of voter rolls laws, as well as the state’s “exact-match” voter registration verification law, are neither illegal nor discriminatory. In a 288-page opinion, Jones concluded that “even though Georgia’s electoral system is imperfect, the challenged practices do not violate the Constitution or the [Voting rights Act].”

Despite detractors’ claims to the contrary, Georgia’s elections continue to see record turnout according Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

NORTH CALIFORNIA:A Wake County Superior Court ruled for the Republican Party. It overturned a rule by the State Board of Elections which would have required at-large poll observers that stayed at one polling place for at least four hours.

This rule would have undermined state legislation that created the at-large observers law. It also applied the same rule to poll observers assigned to precincts.

This was a win for voters as transparency and the ability to have observers observe every aspect of the election process and vote were essential to ensuring the integrity and security of elections.

There are still legal proceedings in progress across the country with just a few days before the November midterm elections. We will see more after Election Day if there are close races.

We will all be blessed if there is a smooth, uncontroversial and peaceful election in which everyone, even the losers agrees that the elections were fair, honest, and in accordance with the laws and regulations established before the elections by state legislatures or state election officials.

Editor’s Note: The name of President Steve Jones, who appointed federal Judge Steve Jones, has been corrected

Do you have a comment about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Include the article’s URL or headline, as well as your name and state.

The post Election Fights Take Place in Courts Before Midterms originally appeared on The Daily Signal.