Since the 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s mail balloting policies have been contentious legal battlegrounds, with two recent cases poised to impact the rules just before the upcoming elections. These cases raise critical issues regarding the handling of “deficient” mail ballots—those lacking essential components like a secrecy envelope or containing errors such as incorrect dates. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that voters who submit these flawed mail ballots can switch to provisional ballots on Election Day, but the U.S. Supreme Court may reconsider this ruling. Experts estimate that thousands of ballots could hang in the balance depending on how these decisions pan out. Another critical issue is whether mail ballots that are undated or misdated should be rejected outright. Although previous attempts to overturn the state’s longstanding rule faced setbacks, a recent ruling by a Pennsylvania appellate court prompted the Philadelphia Board of Elections to count such ballots for a special election, reviving debates about these practices in the context of the 2024 presidential election.
Voting by mail in Pennsylvania is fraught with potential pitfalls for voters, often leading to rejected ballots due to procedural oversights. Enabling mail-in voting requires voters to request a ballot and ensure its return by Election Day, with major rejection factors including unsigned affidavits, undated or misdated envelopes, and the absence of secrecy envelopes, resulting in a lexicon of ballot rejections: “unsigned,” “undated,” “misdated,” and “naked.” Compounding these challenges is the lack of a uniform system across counties for notifying voters about mail ballot errors or offering remedies. During the previous election cycle, some counties effectively communicated deficiencies, allowing certain voters to rectify their ballots, while others provided little to no information, leaving many voters uninformed about their mail ballot status until after Election Day.
In light of new data provided by Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, an examination of mail ballots reveals considerable ongoing complexities. As of the latest updates, 2,193,578 mail ballot applications were approved, with 1,622,675 recorded as returned. Nevertheless, approximately 5,059 ballots—roughly 0.5% of those returned—face disqualification due to various deficiencies. Although some counties allowed voters to correct signature or date mistakes, discrepancies in notification policies among different counties result in an uncertain number of ballots that may end up being rejected. This inconsistency underscores the precarious nature of mail voting in Pennsylvania, which lacks a cohesive pre-canvas protocol for handling ballot errors.
Estimations regarding the scale of problematic mail ballots in Pennsylvania can be influenced by examining counties committed to pre-canvassing procedures. Higher rates of ballot issues have been flagged in counties where both secrecy envelopes and affidavits were pre-canvassed, suggesting a significant but underreported scope of mail ballot errors statewide. By analyzing data from counties that exhibit varying levels of pre-canvassing activity, estimates indicate there may be as many as 8,000 problematic mail ballots currently recorded, though many more could emerge as the election approaches. Since approximately 75% of requested mail ballots have been returned, and counting trends reflect a correlation between close-to-deadline submissions and potential errors, ongoing monitoring will be essential in understanding the overall picture.
The landscape of mail balloting issues is reminiscent of the previous election cycle; in 2022, an estimated 1.5% of mail ballots were rejected due to procedural errors. Fewer ballots may indeed be rejected in the upcoming election despite a rise in mail voting numbers anticipated compared to the midterms. If this pattern holds, approximately 16,000 mail ballots could be problematic, although higher error rates are likely as Election Day draws near, particularly among younger and less experienced voters who are statistically more prone to these mistakes.
Ultimately, the political calculus of Pennsylvania is crucial, particularly due to its significant 19 electoral votes, a vital prize in tightly contested national races. In the previous election, Democrats cast the majority of mail-in ballots; however, early data this election reflects a more balanced partisan approach, suggesting voting trends may shift. As legal proceedings unfold and election day looms, the consequences of these rulings could significantly affect voter turnout and ultimate election outcomes in Pennsylvania, making it a focal point for understanding electoral dynamics in the 2024 presidential election. Given Pennsylvania’s historical context and the narrow margins that have defined past contests, every mailed ballot—whether executed flawlessly or fraught with errors—may play a pivotal role in determining the victor.