PITTSBURGH – President Donald Trump’s campaign is figuring out what’s left of its federal lawsuit against Pennsylvania election officials following an adverse decision from the state Supreme Court last week.
On Sept. 20, a 4-3 vote of Supreme Court justices granted the Pennsylvania Democratic Party its requested three-day extension to count mail-in ballots and approved use of drop-box locations apart from official polling places.
Ballots eligible to be counted in the General Election must now be postmarked by the time polls close on Election Day and be received by all Pennsylvania county election boards at 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the Nov. 3 election.
Republicans statewide have opposed changing that deadline and also moved to outlaw the use of such drop boxes or satellite election offices, arguing they are not specifically authorized under state law.
Donald J. Trump for President’s federal lawsuit against Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar was on hold while the Supreme Court sorted out the issue. On Sept. 18, the campaign filed a notice of remaining viable claims in the wake of the decision.
The campaign plans to argue that the use of unmanned drop boxes enables ballot harvesting, third-party delivery and tampering of absentee and mail-in ballots.
Voters across Pennsylvania will thus be treated differently, in violation of the Equal Protection clauses of the state and U.S. constitutions, Trump’s campaign says.
The campaign will also proceed with voter dilution claims over non-compliant absentee and mail-in ballots. It says the Supreme Court’s ruling did not decide its legal theories on that issue.
“(T)he parties in that case never asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to address the Election Code’s provisions concerning the approval of in-person absentee and mail-in ballot applications or the Secretary’s January 10, 2020 guidance related to that issue,” Trump’s campaign wrote.
“Nor did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court make any decision on such issues. Accordingly, all of
Plaintiffs’ federal and state constitutional claims of voter dilution as they relate to Defendants’ approval of in-person absentee and mail-in ballot applications without performing the requisite verification of the applicant’s permanent voter registration record remain viable.”
The campaign proposes a schedule that will lead to an Oct. 5 evidentiary hearing. It will also continue its case against poll watchers.
In its majority ruling, the state Supreme Court affirmed the state’s poll watching law, which the Trump campaign had sought to nullify in federal court by claiming it violated the Pennsylvania Constitution and U.S. Constitution.
Per that law, poll watchers – an appointed volunteer who monitors a polling place on Election Day for incorrect or irregular procedures – must be a registered voter from the county in which they are conducting those activities.
Republicans said they have not been able to enlist enough poll watchers in Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold in Pennsylvania, while Democrats say that removing the poll watching residency restriction would lead to widespread voter intimidation in polling places.