The controversy began when the Republican National Committee (RNC) launched a lawsuit last Thursday, targeting the practices of several counties that intended to count these ballots. This legal challenge specifically named Bucks, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties.

Legal Battle Over Mail Ballot Dates

In response to the RNC's legal action, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered its verdict on Monday. The ruling emphasized adherence to existing election law, affirming that mail ballots lacking correct dates are invalid.

Just days before this, Bucks County commissioners made a contentious decision to count the misdated ballots due to a closely contested race that seemed headed for a recount between Senator Bob Casey and Senator-elect Dave McCormick.

Election Results Amidst Judicial Rulings

Following the court’s decision, the Associated Press announced on November 7 that Dave McCormick had defeated Bob Casey by a margin exceeding 17,000 votes. This declaration came amidst ongoing legal disputes over the validity of certain ballots.

A prior ruling by the same court on November 1 upheld the constitutionality of requiring handwritten dates on mail ballots, setting the stage for the current verdict.

RNC and Judicial Quotes on the Ruling

RNC Chairman Michael Whatley commented on the outcome, stating, "Following our latest RNC lawsuit, today the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled yet again that undated ballots CANNOT BE COUNTED. No more excuses. Election officials in Bucks, Montgomery, Philadelphia, and other counties have absolutely no choice but to reject illegal ballots. We will hold them to it."

Justice David Wecht, supporting the verdict, expressed the importance of the rule of law, emphasizing that local officials must comply with court orders. His statement underscores the court's expectation of adherence to legal standards across counties.

Further Commentary by Justices

Justice Kevin Brobson also weighed in, clarifying the limitations of local election officials' powers. He remarked, "Local election officials do not have the authority to ignore Election Code provisions that they believe are unconstitutional."

This judicial perspective reinforces the overarching authority of established election law and the limited scope of discretion allowed to local officials in interpreting these laws.