Tuesday, April 1, 2025
For immediate release
Contact: William Epstein, 610-505-6105
DJOP hails Federal Appeals Court ruling striking requirement that voters date mail-in ballots
The board members of Democratic Jewish Outreach Pennsylvania (DJOP) today hailed a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Baxter that said the Commonwealth’s requirement for voters to write a date on their mail-in ballots infringes on the constitutional right to free expression.
Baxter ruled Monday the requirement of a date serves to disenfranchise voters.
The state’s Act 77 instructs voters to write a date on the outside of the envelope provided by county governments to return their ballots. Voters, however, often have forgotten the date or have written a date unrelated to the election, such as their birthdate. This has caused tens of thousands of ballots to be disqualified even when they’re returned on time. In close elections they have been the basis for challenging mail-in ballots.
Jill Zipin, DJOP Chair, called the ruling “an important victory for free and fair elections, protecting Pennsylvanians’ constitutional right to participate in our democracy.” Zipin added,
“It’s also a reminder that while Donald Trump and Republicans continue their efforts to disenfranchise voters across the country, Democrats are fighting to make certain that every legally cast vote counts.”
Baxter ruled in a lawsuit brought against the state’s 67 county board of elections by the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees and the American Federation of Teachers. She agreed with the plaintiffs that the date requirement serves no compelling government interest and does not justify infringing on voters’ First Amendment rights.
Baxter, appointed by Donald Trump in December 2017, also said she found found no evidence to support what she called “nebulous” claims by Republicans who intervened in the case that the date requirement bolsters voter confidence in mail-in ballots.
“Since there is no evidence that the date requirement serves any state interest, even a slight burden on voting rights cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” she ruled.
