## Facts

- The Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted Act 77 (2019), amending the Election Code to allow any qualified elector to vote by “no-excuse” mail-in ballot.
- Doug McLinko (a county commissioner and registered voter) and, in a related action, several Pennsylvania House members challenged Act 77’s universal mail-in voting provisions as facially unconstitutional.
- The challengers argued that the Pennsylvania Constitution authorizes voting outside the polling place only for the limited elector categories listed in Article VII, § 14 (absentee voting).
- In two divided decisions, the Commonwealth Court agreed and declared Act 77’s universal mail-in voting provisions unconstitutional because they extended voting by mail beyond the classes enumerated in Article VII, § 14.
- The Department of State and the Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and consolidated the related matters.
- Earlier litigation had rejected a postelection facial challenge to Act 77 on laches grounds; in this litigation the constitutional challenge was brought in time for merits review.

## Issues

1. Whether Act 77’s universal, no-excuse mail-in voting for all qualified electors violates the Pennsylvania Constitution, particularly Article VII, § 14.
2. Whether Article VII, §§ 1 and 4 (“by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law”) permit the General Assembly to authorize universal mail-in voting beyond the absentee categories listed in § 14.
3. Whether Article VII, § 14 is an exclusive limitation on non-in-person voting or an additional authorization for absentee voting for specified electors.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court.
- The Court held that Act 77’s universal mail-in voting provisions are constitutional.
- The Court concluded that Article VII, §§ 1 and 4 grant broad authority to the General Assembly to prescribe voting methods, including mail-in voting for all qualified electors.
- The Court rejected the argument that Article VII, § 14 exclusively limits voting outside the polling place to the enumerated absentee categories.
- A dissent would have treated § 14 as exclusive and would have invalidated universal mail-in voting as exceeding the Constitution’s specified absentee classes.

## Legal Principles

- When the Constitution provides that elections shall be “by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law,” the legislature has broad power to regulate the manner of voting absent an express constitutional prohibition.
- Article VII, § 14 is an affirmative authorization to permit absentee voting for specified electors; it does not function as a categorical bar to legislative creation of other voting methods for other electors.
- Constitutional interpretation begins with the text read as a whole; an implied restriction (including via expressio unius) will not be adopted when the broader constitutional language grants general regulatory authority over voting methods.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Act 77’s universal, no-excuse mail-in voting, holding that the Constitution’s broad grant to prescribe voting methods permits such legislation and that Article VII, § 14 does not restrict non-in-person voting to the absentee categories it lists.


McLinko v. Dep’t of State, 279 A.3d 539 (Pa. 2022)