Pennsylvania Flap About Mail-in Envelope Dates Exposes Our Wasteful, Litigious society

The flap over the improperly or undated votes in PA demonstrates our wasteful, litigious society.  The PA election code requires the outside envelope to be signed and dated.  I note that the code section does not indicate whether any date would be invalid.  So, I don’t know the authority behind requiring that the date be within the voting period.  Nonetheless, the rule doesn’t seem unreasonable, but it has been said (presumed or proven?) to skew against Democrats because Democrats have historically voted more by mail.  Particularly because PA pre-prints the year to minimize errors, the percentage of misdated votes is small and unlikely to change an election result.  Some people argue that dating is not necessary to evaluate whether the ballot was submitted in a timely fashion. 

Either position seems acceptable.  Why keep litigating it and other minor issues?

• In 2023, the PA Supreme Court ruled that such votes should not be counted. 
• Then, in November 2023, a Federal judge Court said the PA rule was a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
• So, Bucks County reversed its handling of Nov 2023 misdated mail-in ballots. 
• In August, 2024, a Commonwealth Court in PA, ruled 4-1 that the rule violates the PA State Constitution. 
• In September, the PA Supreme Court ruled 4-3  that the Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint had not named all 67 counties.  The 3 dissenters wanted the PA Supreme Court to issue a decision on the issue rather than reject the case on a technicality. 
• The same 5 Commonwealth Court judges then ruled 3-2 that a lower court was right to require Philadelphia to count 69 such votes in a September special election, but documented that its decision did not apply to the Presidential election.  The jurisdictional issue was not a problem with that filing. The judge who switched his position from August to September did so, not on the basis of law, but rather because the decision could sow confusion in the Presidential election. 
• On November 1, that PA Supreme Court re-iterated that improperly or undated votes would not count and expressed dissatisfaction with trying to change election rules on the eve of a major election.
• Nonetheless, three counties intentionally and publicly ignored the PA Supreme Court ruling by counting such votes. 
• On November 18^th, the PA Supreme Court again ruled 4-3 that such votes should not be counted, but apparently left open the possibility of further litigation.
• Meanwhile, there have been other contests regarding votes that were invalid for other reasons.  For example, the PA Supreme Court ruled that if people failed to put their mail-in ballot in the second secrecy envelope, they should be allowed to vote provisionally in person.  On November 1, the US Supreme Court agreed.