Bad Omens for Election Law in Pennsylvania

In a 5-2 decision in McLinko v. Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania Constitution did not prevent the legislature from enacting universal voting by mail, despite the fact that Pennsylvania Constitution requires voters to "offer" vote in their voting districts and lays out very specific, limited instances where absentee ballots shall be allowed.

The McLinko Court acknowledges that the constitutional absentee voting issue has been decided already in previous court cases on very similar facts.

• In an 1863 case called Chase v. Miller, the Court ruled that the Military Absentee Act of 1839 was unconstitutional in that it excused military personnel from the constitutional requirement that they "offer to vote," that is, appear in person and deliver the ballot to election officials.

In its discussion of precedent, the Court quotes old case law and rightly points out that courts are not bound to precedent at all costs

• Precedent needs to be overruled when it is bad law
• The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's past decisions on in-person voting are based on legitimate reading of the text and history of the Pennsylvania Constitution
• They were not overruled to right some egregiously wrong decision or to vindicate a fundamental constitutional right

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision:

• The majority opinion, written by five Democrat justices, makes it clear that the decision will benefit Democrats
• References to anti-democratic sentiments of judges and times when only white men could vote are irrelevant to the work of judges
• Court cases necessarily have political outcomes
• But they ought never to have political reasoning posing as objective legal judgment

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/bad-omens-for-election-law-in-pennsylvania/