Ball v. Chapman

2 Citing cases

  1. Black Political Empowerment Project v. Schmidt

    283 M.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Aug. 30, 2024)

    (PFR ¶ 92 & Wherefore Clause ¶¶ (c)-(e).) According to Petitioners, since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2023) (Ball), the Secretary, the 67 county boards of elections, and the federal courts have all confirmed the dating provisions serve no purpose, are meaningless, and have been inconsistently and arbitrarily applied. Petitioners therefore alternatively request that the dating provisions be reinterpreted and applied as "directory," rather than "mandatory," such that Respondents cannot use noncompliance with those provisions to disenfranchise eligible voters in violation of their fundamental right to vote.

  2. Pa. State Conference of Naacp Branches v. Sec'y Commonwealth of Pa.

    97 F.4th 120 (3d Cir. 2024)   Cited 5 times

    But the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania soon settled the issue for state law purposes. See Ball v. Chapman, — Pa. —, 289 A.3d 1, 20-23 (2023). It unanimously agreed the command in Pennsylvania's Election Code that mail-in voters "shall ... date" the declaration was "unambiguous and mandatory" as a matter of statutory interpretation; so omitting the date, or incorrectly dating the return envelope, "render[s] a ballot invalid" under Pennsylvania law.