## Facts

- Pennsylvania enacted Act 77 (2019), expanding mail-in voting and requiring that mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day; the Act included a nonseverability provision tied to that deadline.
- During COVID-19-related legislative activity in March 2020, the Pennsylvania legislature did not change the statutory receipt deadline.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, relying on the state constitution’s Free and Equal Elections Clause, ordered that mail ballots be treated as timely if postmarked by Election Day and received within three days after, and that ballots with missing or illegible postmarks be treated as timely if received within that period.
- The Republican Party of Pennsylvania contended that the state court’s order altered election rules enacted by the legislature for federal elections and conflicted with federal law setting a uniform federal Election Day.
- After an earlier stay application was denied by an equally divided Court, the Republican Party filed a petition for certiorari and moved to expedite its consideration before the 2020 general election.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s extension of the mail-ballot receipt deadline.
2. Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decree impermissibly displaced the legislature’s rules for federal elections under the Elections Clause and Electors Clause and/or conflicted with federal Election Day statutes (raised but not decided on the merits).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied the motion to expedite consideration of the certiorari petition.
- The Court did not grant certiorari, did not issue a merits opinion, and did not resolve the federal constitutional questions.
- Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, issued a statement expressing concern that the state court had altered an unambiguous statutory deadline set by the legislature for federal elections and warning of potential post-election complications.

## Legal Principles

- A Supreme Court order denying expedition is a procedural disposition that does not decide the merits of the underlying constitutional claims.
- A statement by individual Justices accompanying such an order does not constitute an opinion of the Court and does not create binding precedent.
- The Elections Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 4) and Electors Clause (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1) questions may be implicated when a state court, invoking state constitutional provisions, changes election rules enacted by the state legislature for federal elections, but those questions were not adjudicated in this disposition.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court declined to expedite review of a challenge to Pennsylvania’s judicially extended mail-ballot receipt deadline, leaving the merits unresolved while a three-Justice statement criticized the state court’s alteration of legislatively set rules for federal elections and warned of potential post-election difficulties.


Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, 141 S. Ct. 1 (2020)