Arguments Held In Mail In Ballot Curing Case

August 6, 2024 2:43 am

Attorneys representing seven disenfranchised voters, the Washington Branch of the NAACP and the Center for Coalfield Justice squared off against special counsel appointed by Washington County Commissioners to defend their policy to prohibit notice to mail in voters that there are defects in their ballots and not allow curing of ballots. This policy segregated 259 votes from being counted in the April 2024 primary election, even though in 2023, those voters with ballots in similar condition could have been notified and offered the opportunity to cure the violating condition. Vic Walczak, Legal Director of the ACLU of PA says that their argument is based on the Pennsylvania Constitution under the due process clause. Not notifying the voters of the problematic ballot denied them the due process to be able to have their vote count and thus robbed them of their right to vote. David Berardinelli, Special Counsel appointed by commissioners to defend their decision to not allow notice and curing stood behind the Pennsylvania Election Code, stating that no language exists covering ballot curing. He called it a legislative issue and those decisions on ballot curing should be made by state representatives and senators. They argue that notice has been given in mail in ballot directions that state that if the envelopes are not filled out precisely, that ballot will not be counted. He cautioned the judge that deciding against the policy in place may put him in the position of legislating from the judicial bench. The judge took the matter under advisement for further review. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.