A Republican-backed lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s procedures for overseas voters appeared to encounter significant roadblocks. U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner expressed skepticism over the timing and merits of the case, repeatedly questioning why the lawsuit was filed just weeks before the crucial upcoming Election Day on November 7th.
The suit, spearheaded by six Republican members of Congress, accuses the state’s Secretary of State, Al Schmidt, a Republican himself, of violating both state and federal laws by not adequately verifying the identities of voters who register under federally mandated procedures for citizens living abroad. However, during the hourlong hearing, the judge pointed to the delay in filing the lawsuit, noting the longevity of the laws and procedures in question.
“The delay here isn’t only a matter of weeks or months, it’s years,” remarked Judge Conner, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. His comments underscored the critical issue of timing in the lawsuit, casting doubt on whether the case could advance swiftly enough to affect the 2024 elections.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that Pennsylvania’s current process for registering overseas voters is less stringent than the process for voters living within the state. The lawsuit asserts that while Pennsylvania residents must take certain steps to verify their identities when registering to vote, the procedures for overseas voters, which are governed by the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), are laxer and lack sufficient safeguards to prevent fraud or foreign interference.
“There should be the same standard,” said Erick Kaardal, the attorney representing the six Republican lawmakers. He argued that allowing a less rigorous process for Americans living abroad could open the door to tampering, fraud, or even interference by foreign governments.
But Kaardal’s claims went even further during Friday’s hearing, raising the specter of foreign meddling. The attorney suggested that both the Iranian and Russian governments might be exploiting the less stringent procedures for overseas voters to interfere in U.S. elections, stating, “We don’t want votes for Iran or Russia counted. We don’t want to participate in an election with foreign interference.”
The claim of potential foreign interference became a focal point during the hearing, with Judge Conner demanding evidence to support the allegation that foreign powers, specifically Iran or Russia, could be using Pennsylvania’s overseas voting procedures to influence the outcome of U.S. elections.
“What do you have that establishes that there’s some Iranian influence over Pennsylvania’s overseas ballots?” Conner asked.
Kaardal responded by referencing a recent federal indictment unsealed in September, which charged three Iranian operatives with attempting to interfere with the 2020 U.S. presidential election. According to the indictment, the operatives had allegedly engaged in cyberattacks targeting former President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. Kaardal suggested that the lax registration process for overseas voters could present a similar vulnerability in the upcoming elections.
Despite this argument, the judge appeared unconvinced. Conner emphasized the need for concrete evidence directly linking foreign interference to Pennsylvania’s overseas voters, something the plaintiffs had yet to provide.
On the other side of the courtroom, Pennsylvania’s legal defense, represented by attorney Thomas Howell, argued that the rules governing overseas voter registration have been in place for over a decade without incident. Howell noted that the UOCAVA procedures, which are designed to ensure that military members and other U.S. citizens living abroad can participate in elections, have been consistently applied since their introduction 12 years ago.
Howell also cautioned the court against taking any abrupt action this close to the election. With ballots already sent to thousands of overseas voters and some ballots already returned, he argued that making any sudden changes to the process could cause significant disruption to the election system.
“All of this is in motion,” Howell said, warning that halting or altering the overseas voting process could disenfranchise American voters living abroad and create logistical chaos in an already highly charged electoral environment.
This lawsuit is just one of several Republican-led legal efforts to challenge election procedures across the country, a trend that has gained momentum since the 2020 election. Many GOP lawmakers and candidates have expressed concerns about election security and potential fraud, often pointing to foreign interference as a growing threat. This wave of litigation is seen by many as part of a broader strategy to challenge voting regulations perceived as more favorable to Democratic voters, including expanded mail-in voting and absentee ballots.
For years, Democrats have focused significant efforts on mobilizing overseas voters, who often lean Democratic in presidential elections. With an estimated 9 million U.S. citizens living abroad, overseas voters represent a significant, if often overlooked, constituency that can swing close elections. Recognizing this, Republicans have increasingly focused their attention on ensuring that absentee ballots, particularly from overseas, are scrutinized as closely as those cast by voters within the U.S.
The Pennsylvania lawsuit, filed by Republican Reps. Guy Reschenthaler, Dan Meuser, Glenn “G.T.” Thompson, Lloyd Smucker, Mike Kelly, and Scott Perry, reflects this strategy. However, during Friday’s hearing, their lawyer, Kaardal, conceded that it is impossible to predict whether overseas ballots will ultimately benefit Democratic or Republican candidates in the 2024 elections. Still, he maintained that the lawsuit is necessary to ensure election integrity.
“The only way we’re going to fix our elections is by having the courage to stick with cases before, during, and after elections,” Kaardal said.
One of the main issues raised by Judge Conner during the hearing was the timing of the lawsuit. The judge repeatedly asked why the plaintiffs had waited until late September to file the suit, considering that the voting procedures in question have been in place for over a decade. Filing the case so close to Election Day, Conner suggested, could disrupt the voting process and create confusion for both voters and election officials.
Kaardal defended the timing, arguing that previous court decisions have made it clear that post-election challenges are often dismissed, leaving no recourse for addressing potential issues that arise during the voting process. He suggested that filing the suit before the election gives the court an opportunity to address the concerns while there is still time to make corrections.
However, the judge appeared to remain skeptical, emphasizing that waiting until the final weeks before the election to challenge longstanding procedures puts the court in a difficult position.
Pennsylvania, as a key battleground state, has been at the center of numerous election-related legal battles in recent years. With its 19 electoral votes, the state has played a decisive role in recent presidential elections, and both parties are intensely focused on securing every possible vote in the 2024 race.
The lawsuit’s outcome could have significant implications not just for overseas voters in Pennsylvania, but for similar cases being filed across the country. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could lead to stricter verification requirements for overseas voters in Pennsylvania and potentially set a precedent for other states to follow. However, if the case is dismissed, it may signal a rejection of last-minute efforts to change voting rules ahead of elections.
The lawsuit remains unresolved, with Judge Conner offering no immediate ruling during Friday’s hearing. Both sides are awaiting further court proceedings that will determine whether the case moves forward and whether the voting procedures for Pennsylvania’s overseas citizens will be altered before Election Day.
