More than a week ago, a state court in Pennsylvania ruled that election officials could no longer discard improperly dated ballots, a ruling that could significantly impact the state’s election outcome. Many officials hailed the ruling as a win for Pennsylvania voters, but not Claire Zunk, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. “Courts should not undermine election confidence and integrity by striking down commonsense election laws,” Zunk told Spotlight PA, claiming the ruling was “an example of the worst kind of judicial activism.”
Republicans continue to challenge mail-in ballot processes in several states, which some Democrats allege is the GOP trying to disenfranchise voters. But Republicans fear the left wants to enfranchise non-citizens. Folks on both sides may be well-intentioned, of course, yet the continual back-and-forth could easily distract them from remembering what they’re fighting for and why. At what point does the battle for election integrity become less about secure and fair elections and more about power and winning?
The Election Underbelly
Since 2020, several cases on revising election laws have been filling up court calendars in key states. “The sides have already tussled in dozens of lawsuits this year, arguing over mail ballots and voter rolls,” wrote Nick Corasaniti of The New York Times. “But they’ve also zeroed in on certification in the battlegrounds of Arizona, Nevada and Georgia. Democrats have asked courts to require local officials to certify elections. Trump allies want those officials to have discretion over whether to certify. Two lawsuits in Georgia are testing these ideas.”
And that’s not all. Mail-in ballot procedures in Pennsylvania and Nevada are taking heat. Arizona’s manual for governing elections is under a microscope, and a few weeks ago, a Supreme Court decision declared the state could require voters in some instances to provide proof of citizenship, depending on which form Arizonans use. This list is not exhaustive but provides a snapshot of some battles between the parties as they pull every legal lever within reach to win.
It’s important to remember that not all US elections observe the same rules. Each state follows different laws and guidelines. Many may face other legal challenges before and after Nov. 5. Yes, after. Both sides anticipate disputes concerning election outcomes, meaning each party believes the opposition will contest the results if it loses. On Election Day, their national committees plan to have volunteers in swing states to monitor poll workers. Lawyers scattered around the nation are ready to act on behalf of their respective parties.
Even though fewer than 60 days remain until Nov. 5, plenty of time exists for officials to cobble together more lawsuits, and to make excuses to count any ballot with a drop of ink.
Domestic Interference
Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been heavily involved in efforts to make voting more accessible, which seems pragmatic and sensible but could be just another moralistic-sounding attempt to push the boundaries. The DOJ also has sought to loosen mail-in voting rules in Ohio and Alabama and even requested that the Supreme Court allow voters without proof of citizenship to apply for absentee ballots in those two states.
The DOJ and numerous Democrats seem to have the same interest in pushing a free-for-all access to voting. Chad Ennis, vice president of the Honest Elections Project, believes the Democratic Party’s effort to broaden voting access endangers election integrity. “They’ll couch it in under the guise of expanding voting rights,” Ennis told the Washington Examiner, “but it’s really, almost without fail, an attack on common sense rules to help make sure the elections run smoothly and fairly and accurately.”
Ennis may have a point. Earlier this year, Liberty Nation’s Chief Political Correspondent Graham Noble explained:
“When it comes to the question of who has the authority to decide how elections are conducted, the Constitution is clear. Legislatures make the rules – not judges, not governors, not attorneys general, and certainly not the US Department of Justice (DOJ). Yet the latter has been trying to insert itself into the business of election administration since the establishment of the Election Threats Task Force in March of 2024.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland called Republican efforts to pass laws to protect voting access an attack on democracy. That echoes some left-wing officials who like to claim democracy is at risk whenever they feel the GOP is threatening their positions.
The closer we get to November, the harder some zealous partisans might try to stretch the rules to benefit their cause, without integrity in mind. However, each modification to the electoral process is another chance it might deviate, even slightly, from constitutional bounds. The show will go on, sure, but where is the line between protecting an election and interfering with one?
