By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US Supreme Court denied an emergency appeal from the Republican party to prevent thousands of provisional ballots being counted in Pennsylvania. The justices have upheld a ruling by the state’s Supreme Court that demanded election officials count provisional votes from people whose mailed votes were rejected. The ruling has been welcomed by supporters of voters’ rights, who have forced predominantly Republican-controlled counties to let electors cast a provisional vote at the polls if their postal vote is rejected due to an error. By contrast, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court rejected a last-minute plea by campaigners for voters’ rights to ensure postal votes will still be counted even if they lack an accurate, handwritten date on the envelope.
Read the original article here
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow Pennsylvania to count contested provisional ballots is both a relief and a little surprising. The rejection of the Republican plea to discard these ballots feels like a significant win for voting rights advocates. In a political landscape chock-full of efforts designed to suppress the vote, I can’t help but feel a glimmer of hope that there are still checks in place to protect democracy, however fragile it may be.
It’s frustrating to watch the Republican Party relentlessly pursue a strict interpretation of voting laws, going to court in a bid to throw out mail-in ballots predominantly cast by Democrats. If only that energy were redirected towards genuine efforts to serve the populace, we might see more constructive outcomes. Instead, they indulge in these futile legal battles that seem more about preserving power than addressing the needs of the American people. With every frivolous lawsuit they file, my disbelief grows—it’s as if they think keeping voters away from the polls is a better strategy than actually engaging with the issues that matter.
The irony isn’t lost on me. Republicans have managed to turn a non-issue into a significant political battleground, focusing on how to suppress votes while the essence of democracy hangs in the balance. It almost feels like a strategy to distract from their inability to govern effectively. They conjure up fears, then step forth as the self-anointed problem-solvers, even as their actions indicate a blatant disregard for the fundamental rights of citizens.
I have an unsettling suspicion that this ruling, while a current win, may not signify long-term progress. The Supreme Court’s mixed track record suggests that they may deftly navigate the waters of fairness now, only to tilt the scales toward partisan favor later. Will they revert to form when the stakes are even higher? It’s a problem with Democrats too, but right now it feels like the Republican Party is hellbent on creating a world where only their kind of voting is “acceptable.” It’s disheartening and downright scary.
This leads me to think about the implications of these rulings moving forward. How many more challenges are we going to see? Will this precedent set by the court foster a raft of legal battles that further muddy the electorate’s ability to express their will? Voting should be simple, not a bureaucratic obstacle course. Allowing provisional ballots to be counted seems like a common-sense decision, yet it exposes just how much is on the line when we approach elections in this polarized climate.
Voter turnout remains critically important, particularly in Pennsylvania—a state that possesses the power to sway the election with its 19 electoral votes. The long lines observed in locations like Bucks County signify a robust engagement from voters wanting their voices heard, but they also underscore the fact that people have to work much harder than they should just to participate in the democratic process. There’s something profoundly wrong with that.
Witnessing voters, from both sides, stand in line, hoping to have their ballots counted, speaks volumes. Each individual there is making an effort to have an impact, and the stakes are as high as they’ve ever been. It’s an emotional scene; I can’t help but think about the countless individuals who lost their lives fighting for this right only for us to constantly have to defend it. Why does it feel like we’re in an endless cycle of pushing back against those who want to suppress our voices? Democracy should not be impeded, and yet it feels like each election brings a new test to its resilience.
I can’t shake the feeling that the justices on the Supreme Court might still prioritize partisan outcomes over the integrity of the electoral process. Yes, they upheld the counting of provisional ballots now, but will that trend continue? Is there an underlying anticipation that this will allow them to manipulate the process