Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day


Last night the show we told you about how Democrats were celebrating the Supreme Court decision not to block a ruling by the Pennsylvania State Supreme. Court. Decision that would allow absentee ballots to be counted in that state even if they arrive up to three days after election. Tonight some experts are warning that if you look closely, there's a reason to worry about what four of the conservative justices on the spring quarter up to. So there were four who did want to take up the case they wanted to take up the challenge. They did not explain why they did. There was opinion issued but boxes millhauser points out quote in their briefs. The GOP hones in on the word legislator arguing that only Pennsylvania state legislature may set the state's rules for choosing presidential electors not the state Supreme Court. Okay so they're saying look don't listen to our state Supreme Court Supreme Court of the United States you guys can overrule them, and if the descending justices were considering accepting that argument, then they're basically toying with the idea that federal courts can just step in and tell states how to interpret their own laws, their own state constitutions plus it's not clear. We've heard the end of this particular case millhauser points out quote. The GOP may be able to raise this issue again after Amy Coney Berties confirmed potentially securing court order requiring states like Pennsylvania to toss out an unknown number of ballots that arrive after election day the election is closed that could be enough to change the result. Those four conservative justices basically laid out an invitation to come back and challenge those ballots when the court is even more favorable to Republicans than it is now when they have a five four majority. One of the people who who filed the supreme. Court on behalf of Pennsylvania is State's Attorney General Josh. Shapiro and he joins me now. All right. This is. The actual federal civil procedure questions here are actually so complicated and I don't think I. Did a great job explaining just now to be honest as I read it. So let's let's just sort of set it up. You have a state constitution in Pennsylvania guarantees people right to vote. Correct. Correct. And There was a lawsuit that said look. The current rules for counting absentee ballots, which which would not count ones that were mailed in good faith and sent before the election day and happened to come in a few days after that's denying people their right to vote and the supreme. Court said of your state said, that's correct under Pennsylvania State Constitution, we have to count those votes is that correct? Yeah that's exactly right. I mean look. Boil this down. This is a matter of state law. There was interpreted by the highest court in our state, our state Supreme Court, and our State Supreme Court said very clearly that you know basically when in doubt err on the side of inclusion or in franchise -ment. Unfortunately, what you have are repeated attacks against our election laws here in Pennsylvania by Donald, trump in his enablers trying to make it harder for people to vote trying to make it easier for ballads to be discarded, and so I've been in court time and time again, defending the right for legal eligible votes to be counted and to make sure the Pennsylvanians can be heard I think Donald Trump is afraid of candidly is having all legal eligible votes in Pennsylvania County because. I think he'll come out on the short end of that stick at the ballot box just as he has in the courthouses where we've beat him, he's over threes got a big fat over on his record and I. Think if he continues down this track here, you know really late in the fourth quarter to try and make it harder for people to vote he'll continue to lose in court. So you this appeal, right? So the State Supreme Court says look yes but. The State Constitution Pennsylvania. Says we we want people to vote for right to vote. We're going to try to interpret this in a way that maximizes legitimate votes you beginning counted not thrown on technicalities. The Republican Party of your state doesn't like this opinion that and appeal it and they asked the Supreme Court to step in and blocked that ruling. And it looks like four conservative justices were interested in hearing that argument. Does that were you all? Well. It does in the sense that it kind of flies in the face of of something going to nerd out on you here for a second flies in the face of something known as the pursell doctrine which ineffective says that federal courts should exercise extreme caution. Before interfering with state election law and that extreme caution gets even more extreme. The closer you get to an election we're not only fourteen days away from election day. We're already voting here in Pennsylvania more than a million Pennsylvanians have already voted. So the idea that the Supreme Court of the United States would step on step in on what is clearly. A state constitutional law question interpreting state law is a bit troublesome. Nevertheless, they didn't muster the votes necessary to stop or block Pennsylvania election law,

Coming up next