Fuck. The Supreme Court is hearing another voting rights case.

[In It to Win It]

Vox

David Ritter is a Republican candidate for a judgeship on the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania. Official tallies show him leading Democrat Zachary Cohen by 71 votes. Meanwhile, 257 ballots remain uncounted — enough to potentially flip the race from Ritter to Cohen.

Ritter wants the Supreme Court to prevent these ballots from being counted, thus locking in his victory. And, while the election took place last November and two other judges who prevailed in that election have already been sworn in, the outcome of the Ritter/Cohen race remains uncertain as the fight over these uncounted ballots drags on.

A state law provides that voters who cast their ballots by mail shall “date and sign” the envelope accompanying their ballot. Significantly, however, the state does not care which date the voter writes on this envelope — only that a date is written upon it. Envelopes that are dated “July 4, 1776” or “April 5th, 2063” will be opened and the ballot within shall be counted. But Ritter argues that voters who fail to write any date should be disenfranchised.

Ritter’s argument conflicts with a federal voting rights law, which provides that voters should not be disenfranchised due to paperwork errors “if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.”

This law, which was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was intended to prevent states from hunting through paperwork filed by voters of color to find small errors that could then be used to disenfranchise those voters. But the law is written broadly to apply to any state action that would strip someone of the right to vote because of a paperwork requirement that is irrelevant to whether the voter is legally qualified to vote.

Ritter in other words, should be an extremely easy case.

There is a non-zero risk, in other words, that the Court could transform this low-stakes case, about an entirely clearcut dispute, into a vehicle for gutting much of what remains of American voting rights law.

Link to tweet

[Fullduplexxx]

1. Isnt this the 2nd one of these

[RKP5637]

2. Since SCOTUS is just another political party, but lots of power, pretty clear which way this will go

[jimfields33]

3. If you don't sign a loan application, what happens?

I don’t understand how hard it is to follow simple instructions. What is wrong with just doing as instructions state?

[2naSalit]

4. American exceptionalism...

"How come I have to follow the rules?"

[dpibel]

5. Materiality matters

You do understand there's a difference between a signature and a date, right?

Without a signature, a contract's just a piece of paper. With a signature, but no date, it's a contract.

As evidenced by the quote in the OP, the state doesn't care if you put the actual date you sign. Because, at least in part, the date you vote has nothing to do with whether you are qualified to vote. Writing a date changes nothing about the ballot.

As for "whyn't you just follow instructions," that's just what they used to say when folks failed the "literacy tests."

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. When I tried to file my taxes online for the first time recently, it

took me about three attempts before my return was accepted.

Granted, a tax return has a lot more boxes than a ballot, but it is easy to overlook things.

[hlthe2b]

7. Not at all. These ballots were signed and returned within the time required. That they did not

specifically write out the date on the outside of the envelope is TOTALLY immaterial to whether or not it is a valid ballot--especially given Congress has previously legislated that minor paperwork errors can not be used to disenfranchise voters (1965 Voting Rights Act) and the state has itself determined that an accurate date is immaterial.

Whether or not SCOTUS is going to use this to yet again put their thumb on the scale-despite clear intent from Congress on the Voting Rights Act to the contrary-- remains to be seen. It would not just deliver this race for one judge over another, but it would deliver the PA Republican Senate primary race to Oz over McCormick--who is almost certain to win if the remaining undated but properly received and signed ballots are not counted.