Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot dating rule is legal under civil rights law.
The requirement for Pennsylvania voters to put accurate handwritten dates on the outside envelopes of their mail-in ballots does not run afoul of a civil rights law.
Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot dating rule is legal under civil rights law, a federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday. The requirement for Pennsylvania voters to put accurate handwritten dates on the outside envelopes of their mail-in ballots does not run afoul of a civil rights law.
Pennsylvania federal appeals court ruled that mail-in ballots received without accurate handwritten dates on the outside of envelopes are not valid
Under a state legislature passed law, mail-in voters must write the date on their envelopes in order to make their vote effective
Accuracy
Undated Pennsylvania mail-in ballots should not be counted regardless of their arrival at the election office on time.
A Supreme Court decision on this matter could affect Pennsylvania and other states that have similar laws regarding mail-in ballots.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it implies that mail-in ballots must have dates on the outside of envelopes. However, this is not entirely accurate as the ruling only applies to Pennsylvania and does not apply nationwide. The article also uses sensationalism by stating that thousands of voters could lose their vote over a meaningless paperwork error.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 on Wednesday, overturning a lower court's November decision.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that former President Donald Trump has railed against mail-in ballots for years without providing any evidence or context about why he holds this position. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either vote in person or vote by mail, implying that these are the only two options available when there may be others. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing some Republicans as saying that mail-in voting raises serious election integrity issues without providing any evidence of this claim. Finally, the article contains a fallacy of omission by not mentioning that Pennsylvania voters have been required to provide identification when casting their ballots since 2019.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that former President Donald Trump has railed against mail-in ballots for years without providing any evidence or context about why he holds this position.
The author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either vote in person or vote by mail, implying that these are the only two options available when there may be others.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing some Republicans as saying that mail-in voting raises serious election integrity issues without providing any evidence of this claim.
The article contains a fallacy of omission by not mentioning that Pennsylvania voters have been required to provide identification when casting their ballots since 2019.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that is biased towards the Republican party. The author uses language such as 'trivial paperwork errors' and 'unlawful left-wing attempts to count undated or incorrectly dated mail ballots', which implies that Democrats are trying to cheat in elections by not properly dating their mail-in ballots. This is a clear example of political bias.
The author uses language such as 'trivial paperwork errors' and 'unlawful left-wing attempts to count undated or incorrectly dated mail ballots', which implies that Democrats are trying to cheat in elections by not properly dating their mail-in ballots. This is a clear example of political bias.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Pennsylvania mail-in ballots as they are affiliated with the Republican National Committee (RNC) which is involved in legal battles over voting rights and election integrity. The article also mentions Judge Thomas Ambro who was appointed by President Trump, further indicating that there may be political bias at play.
The RNC has been actively campaigning against mail-in ballots and has filed lawsuits challenging their use in several states, including Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania federal appeals court ruled that mail-in ballots received without accurate handwritten dates on the outside of envelopes are not valid
Under a state legislature passed law, mail-in voters must write the date on their envelopes in order to make their vote effective
Accuracy
The requirement for Pennsylvania voters to put accurate handwritten dates on the outside envelopes of their mail-in ballots does not run afoul of a civil rights law.
Pennsylvania state law requires a handwritten date on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots but it is not used to determine voter eligibility.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the ruling of a federal appeals court panel without providing any evidence or reasoning for their decision. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the potential US Supreme Court clash and its impact on upcoming presidential elections.
The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the enforcement of dated return envelopes, addressing a battle that began in 2020.
Bias
(85%)
The author is biased towards the ruling of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned a lower court ruling and made it mandatory for mail-in ballot envelopes to be dated in Pennsylvania. The author also uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with this decision, such as calling them 'collective disagreement' and 'concerns about thousands of state residents losing their vote over a meaningless paperwork error'. Additionally, the author presents only one side of the argument without providing any counterarguments or evidence to refute it.
An exterior envelope date requirement in Pennsylvania's mail-in voting system does not run afoul of a civil rights law
Pennsylvania redesigned the mail-in ballots for the upcoming primary to remind voters to date their envelopes under their signatures
The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a previous lower court ruling
Pennsylvania state law requires a handwritten date on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots but it is not used to determine voter eligibility.
Under a state legislature passed law, mail-in voters must write the date on their envelopes in order to make their vote effective
The Materiality Provision only applies when the State is determining who may vote
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author misrepresents the ruling of the appeals court by stating that it overturned a previous ruling handed down by the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania when in fact it upheld an earlier decision made by that court to count undated mail-in ballots.
The author states: 'A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled by a vote of 2 to 1 on Wednesday that mail-in ballots without a handwritten date or with an incorrect date should not be counted.' This is false as it implies that the appeals court overturned an earlier ruling made by the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania, when in fact it upheld that decision.
The author states: 'Under the act, the right to vote cannot be denied because of an "error or omission" that is "not material' to determining whether someone is eligible to vote.' This statement implies that not counting undated mail-in ballots would violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act when in fact it does not.
The author states: 'That decision is likely to be be appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court's final decision could have major consequences for the upcoming presidential election as well as other elections that use mail-in ballots, like races for the House of Representatives and Senate.' This statement implies that a ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be appealed to the Supreme Court when in fact it is not clear if an appeal will occur.
Fallacies
(75%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(80%)
The article is biased in favor of the Republican National Committee and against the Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP. The author uses phrases such as 'unlawful left-wing attempts', 'meaningless paperwork error' and 'erect unnecessary barriers that disenfranchise voters' to imply that counting mail-in ballots without a handwritten date or with an incorrect date is unfair, illegal and harmful to democracy. The author also does not provide any evidence for the claims made by the RNC, such as how many votes would be discounted or how this would affect the outcome of future elections. On the other hand, the ACLU presents a more balanced view of the case, stating that voters who are eligible and who met the submission deadline should not lose their vote over a minor error. The author also does not acknowledge any possible benefits or advantages of having mail-in ballots without dates, such as increased accessibility, convenience or security for voters.
A court in Pennsylvania has issued a ruling about mail-in ballots that could lead to a major case at the U.S. Supreme Court and have an important impact on the 2024 presidential election.
If this ruling stands, thousands of Pennsylvania voters could lose their vote over a meaningless paperwork error
In passing the Civil Rights Act, Congress put a guardrail in place to be sure that states don't erect unnecessary barriers that disenfranchise voters.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) had appealed the lower court's ruling and welcomed Wednesday's decision in a statement from Chair Michael Whatley.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Darragh Roche has a conflict of interest on the topic of mail-in ballots as she is affiliated with several organizations and individuals that have a vested interest in this issue.
The article mentions Thomas Ambro who was appointed by President Trump to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania where mail-in ballots are commonly used.
Pennsylvania federal appeals court ruled that mail-in ballots received without accurate handwritten dates on the outside of envelopes are not valid
The Materiality Provision only applies when the State is determining who may vote
An exterior envelope date requirement in Pennsylvania's mail-in voting system does not run afoul of a civil rights law
Accuracy
Under a state legislature passed law, mail-in voters must write the date on their envelopes in order to make their vote effective
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it implies that the ruling by the appeals court will have a significant impact on determining who wins this year's presidential election and other races in Pennsylvania. However, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person's right to vote cannot be denied for an error or omission that is not material in determining voting eligibility. The main legal issue surrounding what are often called 'undated ballots' is whether tallying them violates this act. In the panel's majority opinion, Judge Thomas Ambro stated that the provision only applies when the state is determining who may vote and its role stops at the door of the voting place. This means that a current handwritten date on a return envelope is required by Pennsylvania state law but it does not confirm if someone is eligible to vote. The final vote tallies by county election officials have included ballots arriving in undated or misdated return envelopes for past elections, and this ruling strikes down a lower court ruling that would have allowed these ballots to be counted. However, the decision only applies to Pennsylvania's mail-in ballots and does not affect other states or races.
The article implies that the appeals court ruling will have a significant impact on determining who wins this year's presidential election and other races in Pennsylvania.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the ruling of a federal appeals panel without providing any evidence or reasoning for their decision. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the potential impact on voter confidence and election integrity.
]A current, handwritten date on the return envelope is required by Pennsylvania state law, but that date is not used to confirm if a person is eligible to vote.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the ruling of a federal appeals panel that has set up a potential U.S. Supreme Court battle about Pennsylvania's mail-in ballots that could play a role in determining who wins this year's presidential election and other races in the key swing state.
A local election official organizes mail-in ballots to be sorted for the 2020 general election in West Chester, Pa. Matt Slocum/AP
The main legal issue surrounding what are often called 'undated ballots' is whether not tallying them violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot dating rule is legal under civil rights law
The requirement for Pennsylvania voters to put accurate handwritten dates on the outside envelopes of their mail-in ballots does not run afoul of a civil rights law.
A divided 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to uphold enforcement of the required date on return envelopes, which caused thousands of votes to be declared invalid in the 2022 election.
Accuracy
Pennsylvania state law requires a handwritten date on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots but it is not used to determine voter eligibility.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it implies that the requirement for Pennsylvania voters to put accurate handwritten dates on the outside envelopes of their mail-in ballots does not run afoul of a civil rights law. However, this statement contradicts previous court rulings and ignores evidence suggesting otherwise.
The article states that even without the proper dates, mail-in ballots should be counted if they are received in time. This is false as it has been previously ruled by courts that accurate handwritten dates on return envelopes of mail-in ballots are necessary for determining a voter's eligibility to cast a vote.
The article states that the envelope date is irrelevant in helping elections officials decide whether a ballot was received in time or if a voter is qualified. This statement contradicts previous court rulings and ignores evidence suggesting otherwise.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's decision that mail-in voters must date the declaration on the return envelope of their ballot. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction when stating that thousands of votes were declared invalid due to not having accurate handwritten dates, but then later states that this is only a small fraction of the large state's electorate. Additionally, there are inflammatory rhetoric used in statements such as 'thousands of votes won't be counted over what it called a meaningless error'.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously held this ballot-casting rule is mandatory; thus, failure to comply renders a ballot invalid under Pennsylvania law.
Thousands of votes were declared invalid due to not having accurate handwritten dates.
Bias
(0%)
The article is biased in favor of the date requirement for mail-in ballots and against the voters who may be disenfranchised by it. The author uses phrases such as 'a technical mandate' and 'meaningless error' to imply that the date requirement is trivial or unnecessary, while ignoring the potential impact on thousands of votes. The author also cites only one side of the argument, namely the Republican groups who defended the date requirement, without providing any counterarguments from other sources or perspectives. The article does not present a balanced or objective view of the issue and may influence readers to adopt a negative attitude towards mail-in voters.
In Pennsylvania, Democrats have been far more likely to vote by mail than Republicans under an expansion of mail-in ballots enacted in 2019. The author does not explain why this difference exists or how it may influence the outcome of the election. This shows a lack of context and analysis for the political implications of the date requirement.
The author cites only one side of the argument, namely the Republican groups who defended the date requirement, without providing any counterarguments from other sources or perspectives. This shows a bias towards one political party and a disregard for alternative viewpoints on election procedures.
The author uses phrases such as 'a technical mandate' and 'meaningless error' to imply that the date requirement is trivial or unnecessary, while ignoring the potential impact on thousands of votes. This shows a lack of empathy and understanding for the voters who may be affected by this rule.
