Case: Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar

This case is about the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on mail-in voting. On July 10, 2020, the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania and several Democratic politicians in the state filed this lawsuit in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, a state appeals court that had original jurisdiction in this case because the matter was about elections. The plaintiffs, represented by a private law firm, sued Pennsylvania under the state Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in support of mail-in voting in the 2020 general election.

The plaintiffs asked the court to clarify the rules Pennsylvania state law imposed on the process of mail-in voting. All voters in the state were allowed to use mail-in ballots due to the recent passage of Act 77. However, according to the plaintiffs, ambiguities in this law and disagreements over its implementation could lead to problems in the election, especially since at the time, President Donald Trump was claiming that mail-in voting would lead to fraud. The plaintiffs wanted the court to interpret Act 77 to clarify the law and ensure that all counties in Pennsylvania would use the same rules. They also argued that specific changes in the election process were required by the Free and Fair Elections Clause of the state Constitution.

This suit was partially a response to a previous case, Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, which had been filed less than two weeks earlier. In that case, the Trump campaign had sued Pennsylvania in federal court, alleging that the rules that the Secretary of State had given to the counties about mail-in voting contradicted state law and the state and federal Constitutions. The plaintiffs in Democratic Party v. Boockvar asked the court to declare that the allegations in Trump for President v. Boockvar were based on false interpretations of state law.

The plaintiffs in this case focused on several different aspects of mail-in voting. First, they sought a declaratory judgment that it was legal for counties to let people bring their ballots to drop boxes. They also asked for an injunction mandating that the county boards of elections create policies to make mail-in voting easier given the COVID-19 pandemic. The claim about drop boxes was a direct response to Trump for President v. Boockvar, in which the Trump campaign had asked the court to stop counties from using drop boxes because they violated state law. Second, the plaintiffs in this case asked for an injunction requiring counties to count ballots that people had mailed by Election Day even if they arrived in the week after Election Day. They alleged that delays in sending out ballots would prevent people from returning them on time, and that an extension was required by the Free and Fair Elections Clause of the state Constitution.

Third, the plaintiffs sought both a declaratory judgment and an injunction that if a voter returned a mail-in ballot with an error, election officials should inform the person and let them fix the issue. They argued that this was required by the Free and Fair Elections Clause. Fourth, the plaintiffs sought both a declaratory judgment and an injunction that if a voter failed to put an outer secrecy envelope around their ballot, it must still be counted. This was a response to Trump for President v. Boockvar, where the Trump campaign had argued that according to state law these ballots were invalid.

Finally, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that it was constitutional for state law to only let poll watchers work in their own counties. In Trump for President v. Boockvar, the Trump campaign had claimed that this law violated the state and federal Constitutions because it infringed free speech and voting rights, and that it would increase voter fraud because there would not be enough poll watchers in particular areas of the state.

On August 16, 2020, before the Commonwealth Court issued any ruling, the defendants asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear the case under extraordinary jurisdiction, which lets the Court take up a lower case based on its importance and urgency. On September 1, 2020, the state Supreme Court granted the request. Two days later, the Court let the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the state Senate Republican leaders intervene on the defendants' side.

Sixteen days later, on September 17, the state Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs on some issues and against them on others. 238 A.3d 345. First, it held that using drop boxes for mail-in ballots was legal because it was best to interpret the ambiguous state law in a way that allowed more voting access rather than less. However, it refused to require counties to create policies to make mail-in voting easier because it would exceed the court’s authority. Second, it ruled that counties must count ballots that were mailed by Election Day if they arrived in the three days after Election Day. Given the COVID-19 pandemic and problems with the postal service, the court held that the Free and Fair Elections Clause justified a change of the deadline.

Third, the court held that state law did not require counties to let people fix errors on their ballots, and that the courts should leave such a rule to the state legislature. Fourth, the court held that according to state law, ballots without secrecy envelopes were invalid. Finally, the court ruled that it was constitutional to let poll watchers only work in their own counties because it did not infringe free speech or voting rights. It also found that the defendants had not proven any increased need for poll watching due to mail-in voter fraud. This decision was key to allowing the federal court in Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar to evaluate state law claims.

On September 21, 2020, the Republican Party asked the state Supreme Court to temporarily put a hold on its ruling so they could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the next day the Senate leaders asked for the same thing. The state Supreme Court denied both applications on September 24. Four days later, both the Republican Party and the Senate leaders sought a stay in the case from the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically requesting that it stop the state Supreme Court from changing the mail-in ballot deadline.

About three weeks later, on October 19, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the stay application on a four to four vote. 141 S. Ct. 643. Four days later, the Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to hear the full case, and to speed up the process so it could be heard as quickly as possible. On October 27, the Senate leaders also asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. However, the motion to expedite was denied the next day. 141 S. Ct. 1. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, wrote an opinion criticizing the state Supreme Court’s decision to let mail-in ballots be counted past Election Day because it contradicted the legislature. However, he believed rushing a ruling before Election Day was impractical. On November 6, the Republican Party sought an injunction requiring that the counties store late ballots separately so the Court could rule later on whether they were valid, and on the same day Justice Alito granted the request. 2020 WL 6536912.

On February 5, 2021, the defendant in the case, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, resigned. Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid became the new defendant.

About two weeks later, on February 22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the requests to hear the case. 141 S. Ct. 732. There were two dissents, written by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, who was joined by Justice Gorsuch. The dissents argued that the Court should have heard the case because it contained an important issue about whether state courts can change rules in federal elections.

As of October 2022, there were no further proceedings.