Supreme Court Denies Stay in Migliori v. Ritter: Implications for Mail-In Voting Rules

Introduction

596 U.S. ____ (2022) v. Linda Migliori, et al. David Ritter is a significant case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 9, 2022. The case centers around the validity of undated mail-in ballots in a Pennsylvania state-court judicial election and the interpretation of federal statute 52 U.S.C. §10101(a)(2)(B). The primary parties involved include Linda Migliori and David Ritter, who sought a stay pending certiorari to challenge the Third Circuit's interpretation that undated ballots violate federal law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, denied the application for a stay pending certiorari. Justice Alito dissented from the denial, arguing that the Third Circuit's interpretation of 52 U.S.C. §10101(a)(2)(B) was likely erroneous and could adversely affect the upcoming Pennsylvania elections. He emphasized that the statutory elements outlined did not support the Third Circuit’s decision to invalidate undated mail-in ballots.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Justice Alito referenced several precedents to critique the Third Circuit's interpretation:

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. (2021): This case upheld Arizona voting restrictions, emphasizing that reasonable voting regulations do not necessarily violate federal law.
In re Canvass of Absentee and Mail-in Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020 General Election, 241 A. 3d 1058 (Pa. 2020): The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that undated ballots cannot be counted, reinforcing state-level voting integrity measures.

These precedents illustrate the Court’s stance on the balance between federal oversight and state-managed voting regulations. Justice Alito contends that the Third Circuit overlooked the nuanced distinctions in these cases, leading to an overreach in interpreting federal law.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Alito meticulously dissected the statutory language of 52 U.S.C. §10101(a)(2)(B), identifying five critical elements required for a violation:

A person acting under color of law.
Denying the right to vote.
An error or omission on a record or paper.
The record or paper related to an act requisite to voting.
The error or omission is not material in determining voter qualification under state law.

He argued that while elements 1 and 3 were satisfied, elements 2 and 5 were not. Specifically:

Element 2: Failure to count an undated ballot does not equate to denying the right to vote but rather enforcing compliance with voting procedures.
Element 5: The error (omission of a date) is material to the act of casting a vote, not to the qualification to vote, thus not fitting the non-materiality requirement.

Justice Alito further illustrated the flaw in the Third Circuit's reasoning by comparing it to more significant voting errors, such as the lack of a signature, which undoubtedly affect ballot validity but were not deemed non-material in qualifying to vote.

Impact

The denial of the stay maintains the status quo, allowing the Pennsylvania elections to proceed without addressing the Third Circuit's interpretation immediately. If the Supreme Court later rules differently, it may prompt a reevaluation of mail-in ballot regulations nationwide. This decision underscores the importance of precise statutory interpretation and could influence how courts balance federal statutes with state voting regulations in future elections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

52 U.S.C. §10101(a)(2)(B): This federal statute prohibits individuals acting under authority of law from denying someone's right to vote due to non-material errors or omissions in voting records, such as minor administrative mistakes that do not affect voter eligibility.

            Stay Pending Certiorari: A "stay pending certiorari" is a court order halting a lower court's decision until the higher court (e.g., the Supreme Court) can review the case. It is typically granted if the higher court is likely to take the case and there's an urgent need to maintain the lower court's status quo.
        

            Materiality in Legal Terms: In this context, an error is "material" if it affects whether a person is qualified to vote. Non-material errors are those that do not influence voter eligibility but pertain to the procedural aspects of casting a vote.
        

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to deny the stay in Migliori v. Ritter highlights the intricate balance between federal oversight and state-controlled election processes. Justice Alito's dissent emphasizes the potential repercussions of the Third Circuit's narrow interpretation of 52 U.S.C. §10101(a)(2)(B), advocating for a more restrained approach that respects state-specific voting regulations. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving voting rights and the legitimacy of electoral procedures, ensuring that statutory interpretations do not inadvertently undermine the integrity of the democratic process.