In a decision with potential implications for thousands of Pennsylvania voters, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that voters who forget to place their mail-in ballots in a required secrecy envelope will be able to cast a provisional vote on Election Day. This ruling could prove pivotal in Pennsylvania, a critical swing state in the tightly contested 2024 presidential race.
The high court’s emergency decision, issued without an accompanying explanation—a standard practice in emergency dockets—follows an earlier Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right for voters to submit a provisional ballot if their mail-in vote was rejected due to a missing secrecy envelope. This reversal could lead to thousands of additional ballots being counted in the upcoming election.
Pennsylvania’s election law requires a two-step envelope system for mail-in ballots: the completed ballot must first be placed inside a blank “secrecy envelope” before being enclosed in the outer mailing envelope. This practice is designed to ensure voter anonymity and protect ballot integrity. However, ballots received without the secrecy envelope—often termed “naked ballots”—are generally disqualified, according to Pennsylvania state law. The secrecy envelope rule has proven to be a recurring issue, as thousands of voters inadvertently bypass this step, risking their votes’ exclusion.
Historically, state courts have maintained the position that ballots without a secrecy envelope cannot be counted. However, in a 4-3 decision earlier this week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reasoned that the failure to meet the secrecy envelope requirement did not constitute a cast ballot under state law. According to the ruling, “Because electors failed to comply with the mandatory secrecy envelope requirement, they failed to cast a ballot.” This interpretation opened the door for provisional ballots to serve as an alternative for affected voters.
Republican leaders immediately challenged this state court decision, arguing that allowing provisional ballots under these circumstances dilutes election integrity and bypasses Pennsylvania’s legislative intent. In response, Republicans sought intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the state court’s ruling.
Under Pennsylvania law, provisional ballots provide a recourse for voters who face issues casting a standard ballot on Election Day, either due to technical mishaps or verification issues. Typically, provisional ballots serve as emergency votes, only counted once the eligibility of the voter is confirmed. Until Friday’s Supreme Court decision, Pennsylvania law prevented voters who had already submitted a mail-in ballot from subsequently casting a provisional one if they encountered an issue. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, Pennsylvania voters who make errors, such as omitting the secrecy envelope, will now be allowed to correct the mistake through a provisional ballot.
This change comes as a relief for many election officials and voters in Pennsylvania. Already, the Associated Press reported that as of Thursday, nearly 9,000 mail-in ballots had been returned without the requisite secrecy envelope. NBC News also estimated that the ruling could affect thousands of votes, potentially shifting the outcome in a state where electoral margins are often razor-thin.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Kamala Harris campaign issued a joint statement condemning efforts to “make it harder for your vote to count,” underscoring the ruling’s affirmation of “the right to have your vote counted.” The statement emphasized that the ruling serves as a victory for voters nationwide.
The current ruling, while focused narrowly on the secrecy envelope issue, has broader implications in a state where election laws and voting rights remain hotly contested. Since 2019, Pennsylvania has permitted all voters to utilize mail-in ballots without requiring an excuse. Yet, technical requirements—such as the secrecy envelope rule—continue to create obstacles for thousands of voters. In response, 38 counties in Pennsylvania already take proactive steps to notify voters of potential errors, offering them the opportunity to correct or “cure” their ballots before submission. However, a consistent statewide approach has yet to be implemented.
For some voters, this recent ruling brings long-overdue relief, providing the assurance that even an accidental error on their mail-in ballot will not invalidate their vote entirely.
Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, expressed hesitance regarding the state supreme court’s ruling, suggesting that it could be worth examining the extent of authority that state courts possess in overseeing election procedures. Alito’s statement reflected an ongoing debate surrounding state and federal court roles in election oversight, and he hinted that a further review could clarify limitations on state court authority.
Election law experts note that while the Supreme Court has, in previous cases, affirmed state court oversight of election rules, it has yet to outline precisely when such authority might overreach. Alito’s remarks indicate that the Pennsylvania case may provide a future opportunity for a clearer interpretation of these boundaries.
Pennsylvania’s significance in the presidential race cannot be understated. With 19 electoral votes and a record of shifting between Republican and Democratic candidates in recent elections, the state remains a high-stakes battleground for both parties. After Donald Trump’s narrow victory in Pennsylvania in 2016 and subsequent loss to Joe Biden in 2020, both parties have dedicated significant resources to securing the state in 2024.
In addition to the Supreme Court’s ruling on provisional ballots, local courts in Pennsylvania have also intervened to address issues with mail-in ballots. In Erie County, a judge ruled in favor of approximately 15,000 voters who applied for mail-in ballots but had yet to receive them. The court’s decision permits these voters to visit the county elections office through Monday to obtain a replacement ballot.
The extended timeline allows Erie County’s elections office to remain open daily, offering voters the option to cancel their original mail-in ballot request and receive a new ballot in person. This ruling provides assurance for thousands of voters impacted by logistical delays, ensuring their ballots are counted by Election Day.
Meanwhile, Bucks County faced a similar challenge in managing the overwhelming demand for mail-in ballots. Citing the high volume of last-minute requests, a Bucks County judge granted a three-day extension to voters who were turned away earlier in the week due to long processing times. This extension followed a lawsuit from the Trump campaign, which argued that voters who were present in line before the application deadline should have been accommodated despite processing delays. The court ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, extending the mail-in ballot application deadline until Friday evening.
