Ball v. Chapman

15 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. Bonner v. Chapman

    298 A.3d 153 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Each party asserts they have established a clear right to relief and are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their respective positions as to the ongoing viability of Act 77, and that the opposing parties’ contrary arguments must be rejected. However, while Migliori and Berks County interpreted the Dating Provisions, Migliori has been vacated by the United States Supreme Court, our Supreme Court, in Ball v. Chapman , ––– Pa. ––––, 289 A.3d 1 (2023), has weighed in on the interpretation of the Dating Provisions and Section 10101(a)(2)(B) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (commonly referred to as the "Materiality Provision"), and the current state of the law does not support Petitioners’ contention that they have a clear right to relief.

  3. Baxter v. Phila. Bd. of Elections

    1305 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Oct. 30, 2024)

    See O.R., Item 1, Pet. ¶ 3 (citing Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2023)); H.T. at 14. However, multiple state and federal courts have determined that the dating provisions are meaningless, as they do not establish voter eligibility, timely ballot receipt, or fraud.

  4. 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.

  5. Baxter v. Phila. Bd. of Elections

    76 EM 2024 (Pa. Nov. 1, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    , "election litigation has exploded in recent years." Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1, 32 (Pa. 2023) (Dougherty, J., concurring and dissenting). Of particular concern are those cases that seek to change election rules shortly before or during an election.

  6. Commonwealth v. Roberts

    16 WAP 2023 (Pa. Jan. 22, 2025)

    1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1, 26-27 (Pa. 2023) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(2) ("In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute," a court may presume "[t]hat the General Assembly intends the entire statute to be effective and certain."). See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(1).

  7. In re Provisional Ballots in the 2024 Primary Election

    322 A.3d 900 (Pa. 2024)

    For his part, Justice Wecht opined the date requirement is "stated in unambiguously mandatory terms," and he observed nothing in the Election Code suggests it should be construed as merely directory. He nonetheless provided the fourth vote for the result, noting he would only apply his interpretation prospectively due to the "circumstances under which the issue has arisen[.]" Id. at 1079-80 (Wecht, J., concurring and dissenting); see also Ball v. Chapman, — Pa.—, 289 A.3d 1, 9-11 (Pa. 2023) (Opinion by Wecht, J., more fully summarizing the judicial expressions in Absentee & Mail-In 2020). The upshot is that when we decided Absentee & Mail-In 2020 four years ago, a majority of this Court agreed that the phrase "shall then … date" should, as a matter of Pennsylvania law, be deemed mandatory for all cases subsequent to that decision.

  8. In re Provisional Ballots in the 2024 Primary Election

    628 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 1, 2024)

    . However, in Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2023), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified: "[A]lthough the Court's rationale was expressed in serial opinions, an undeniable majority already has determined that the Election Code's command is unambiguous and mandatory, and that undated ballots would not be counted in the wake of In re [] Canvass." Ball, 289 A.3d at 21-22 (footnote omitted).

  9. Elkin Valley Baptist Church v. PNC Bank

    Civil Action 23-1798 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 10, 2024)

    See also, e.g., Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1, 26-27 (Pa. 2023) (“the rule against superfluities . . . . instructs courts to construe a statute's language ‘so that effect is given to all its provisions, [and] so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant”) (quoting Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009) (brackets in Ball); PJM Power Providers Grp. v. FERC, 88 F.4th 250, 268 (3d Cir. 2023), amended sub nom. PJM Power Providers Grp. v. FERC, No. 21-3068, 2024 WL 259448 (3d Cir. Jan. 24, 2024) (noting courts' responsibility to “avoid interpreting statutory provisions in ways that . . . leave entire operative clauses with no job to do”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cf. United States v. Hood, 343 U.S. 148, 151 (1952) (“[W]e should not read out what as a matter of ordinary English speech is in”).

  10. Baxter v. Phila. Bd. of Elections

    395 EAL 2024 (Pa. Jan. 17, 2025)

    I agree with the Court's decision to grant allowance of appeal on two of the issues presented by Petitioners and to allow intervention by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party ("PDP"). I disagree with its refusal to grant allowance of appeal on an issue advanced by PDP that, in connection with our review of the constitutionality of the dating requirements contained in Sections 3146.6(a) and 3150.16(a) of the Election Code, the Court reconsider the pronouncement in Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2023), that the dating requirements are mandatory. By refusing to address this issue, the Court will be passing on the constitutionality of these statutes even though no agreement ever has been reached on a rationale supporting the holding that the dating requirements were mandatory and enforceable through the disenfranchisement of noncompliant voters.