Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

GOP looks to keep fighting against late-arriving mail ballots in Pennsylvania

Early ballot in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania election officials cannot begin processing mail-in ballots before Election Day, ensuring the winner of the state's 20 electoral votes will not be known for days.

Mark Makela/Getty Iamges

Republicans signaled Tuesday they are not giving up their effort to shut down the vote count on Election Day in Pennsylvania, hours after the Supreme Court delivered a significant win to Democrats by permitting absentee ballots in the pivotal battleground to arrive later.

Word from GOP leaders in the state magnified the realities that legal fighting over almost every aspect of the presidential race is far from over — and that Judge Amy Coney Barrett could play a deciding role in this year's essential democratic exercise as soon as she arrives on the high court, probably next week.

For the time being, though, the situation in Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes crucial to both candidates, is something of a good news, bad news situation for an already confused electorate.


On the one hand, voters who wait until the last minute to cast their absentee ballots are less likely to be disenfranchised because they get delayed by the mail. But on the other hand, the winner in the state, and perhaps the winner of the presidency, very likely won't be known until the weekend after the election — at the earliest.

That suspense will be compounded because none of the state's 2 million or more expected vote-by-mail envelopes will even be opened, and the signatures on them checked, until after the polls open Nov. 3. Negotiations in Harrisburg on a last-minute deal to allow that processing to start earlier essentially collapsed Monday.

What the Supreme Court decided later Monday night, because of a 4-4 deadlock, was to let stand a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It had ruled that ballots arriving by Nov. 6, or three days late, should be counted so as not to punish voters for the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic and delays by the Postal Service — so long as they were postmarked by the time the polls closed or, if the postmark was missing or illegible, it could be proved the ballot went in the mail after Election Day.

The state court noted that Pennsylvania law allows mail ballots to be cast on Election Day, even though delivering them by the end of the day is impractical. Republicans say the court claimed authority that belongs to legislators.

Putting a halt on that ruling, called a stay, would have required five votes. The four most conservative justices justices would have done so: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. On the other side were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the three liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Neither side offered anything in writing, and the fact that it took two weeks for the decision in such an urgent case suggests that compromise had proved impossible.

But it also gave the Republicans a legal window to try again after all nine seats are occupied. Barrett is on course to secure Senate confirmation in the first half of next week, which is the week before the election. During her confirmation hearings she declined to say if she would recuse herself from presidential election cases, on the grounds she would be biased toward the candidate who put her on the court.

Top Pennsylvania GOP officials issued statements Tuesday signaling they were ready to press the issue.

Monday night's ruling "only underscores the importance of having a full Supreme Court as soon as possible," Chairman Lawrence Tabas said. "The Supreme Court decided not to grant a stay — which does not mean the actions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would withstand a legal challenge to their Judicial overreach should the court hear the case."

"We are still hopeful that a full court will reverse the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's intrusion, added the party's top attorney, Tom King.

Trump, meanwhile, derided the Supreme Court ruling as "ridiculous" on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning.

The decision sets aside one of the biggest legal hurdles still facing the election in Pennsylvania. The state Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming days what rules, if any, should face election officials confronted with sloppy mail ballot signatures.

Democrats had requested 1.7 million absentee ballots in the state as of the end of last week, to just 672,000 for Republicans — one of the reasons the Joe Biden campaign is optimistic of carrying the state if all his supporters follow through. Trump carried the state by 44,000 votes, or less than 1 point, last time.

"In a year where there is a very real possibility that the final presidential election result hinges on Pennsylvania, the new rules imposed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (a body elected in partisan elections) could destroy the American public's confidence in the electoral system as a whole," the state GOP and the party's legislative leaders said in their high court brief.

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two presidential tossup states where Republicans control the legislatures but Democrats hold most state Supreme Court seats.

The justices' decision was a big deviation from its record in election cases since the pandemic began. In all but one other case, the court has come down on the side of stricter rules for voting — mainly by applying a precedent against judges loosening procedures close to Election Day. It's first such ruling, hours before Wisconsin primary day in April, overturned a federal judge's decision lengthening the time for absentee voting. (The court did allow ballots to arrive late in that case, too, however.)


Read More

Activists march across Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Activists march across Edmund Pettus Bridge on May 16, 2026 in Selma, Alabama.

Jason Davis / Getty Images

Racism & MAGA-Gerrymandering—Combating the Noxious Mix

There is an old saying: If anyone insists something definitely is not about money; it is definitely about money. The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority claims that its recent election districting rulings are not about abetting racism or siding with MAGA politics, but they are definitely about both.

The Court’s recent Louisiana v. Callais decision cynically demands that anyone challenging election districts as violating the Voting Rights Act must “disentangle race from politics” and show that intentional racial discrimination, rather than politics, was the motivator when minority communities are divided and segments are placed into majority white districts.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters

The Washington Post editorial board penned a bold piece (Bill Cassidy and America’s Increasingly Broken Primary System) in the wake of President Trump’s successful vendetta against the Louisiana Senator. They could have taken the easy route and pointed a finger at the Republicans. Instead, they took issue with both parties and their insatiable appetite to control the rules of the game and punish anyone who steps out of line.

In a media landscape dominated by partisan propaganda, it’s refreshing to read an opinion piece that encourages readers to actually look at what’s happening.

Keep ReadingShow less
A male senior stands in the shadow of a Social Security card with bite missing.

How immigration policy, declining birth rates, and an aging population are pushing Social Security and Medicare toward a fiscal crisis. Explore the hidden link between immigrant labor, retirement security, and America’s demographic future.

DNY59 / Getty Images

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Has a Hidden Cost: Social Security

The Trump administration frames the immigration debate around borders, crime, culture, and national identity. This conceals an uncomfortable reality for the administration: America’s retirement system increasingly depends on immigrant labor to survive.

That dependence is not ideological. It is demographic, rooted in the shrinking ratio between workers paying into the system and retirees drawing benefits from it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less