The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld universal mail-in voting, rejecting Republican claims that legislation approved in 2019 by the commonwealth’s GOP-controlled legislature is unconstitutional.
In a 5–2 decision, with all five Democratic justices in the majority and both Republicans in the minority, the state Supreme Court ruled Act 77 constitutional. The law, passed with overwhelming Republican support in 2019, implemented no-excuses mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, a state that previously did not process many absentee votes.
HOUSE GOP GROUP EMPHASIZES NEED TO AVOID GOVERNANCE PROBLEMS OF PAST MAJORITIES
“We reiterate that our General Assembly is endowed with great legislative power, subject only to express restrictions in the Constitution,” Justice Christine Donohue wrote for the majority. “We find no restriction in our Constitution on the General Assembly’s ability to create universal mail-in voting.”
Act 77 has been the subject of controversy since the 2020 presidential campaign when then-President Donald Trump dished out unsupported claims that mail-in voting — in Pennsylvania and other states — was rife with fraud. After Trump was ousted by now-President Joe Biden, a defeat punctuated by his loss in Pennsylvania, the 45th president claimed the results were the product of fraudulent and unconstitutional mail-in voting.
Trump’s complaints led a collection of Republican officials in Pennsylvania to challenge Act 77 in court. Their argument was centered on the commonwealth’s constitution, which lists acceptable reasons for mail-in voting, rather than pulling the lever in person.
But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately ruled such language in the constitution did not prohibit the legislature from expanding mail-in voting rights. When the legislature approved Act 77, it had no way of knowing that the coronavirus pandemic would push voters to participate in the 2020 election by mail in unprecedented numbers.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported news of the high court’s decision.
