[J-118A-2020, J-118B-2020, J-118C-2020, J-118D-2020, J-118E-2020 and J-118F2020] [OAJC]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: CANVASS OF ABSENTEE AND 

MAIL-IN BALLOTS OF NOVEMBER 3, 

2020 GENERAL ELECTION

APPEAL OF: DONALD J. TRUMP FOR 

PRESIDENT, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 31 EAP 2020

SUBMITTED: November 18, 2020

IN RE: CANVASS OF ABSENTEE AND 

MAIL-IN BALLOTS OF NOVEMBER 3, 

2020 GENERAL ELECTION

APPEAL OF: DONALD J. TRUMP FOR 

PRESIDENT, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 EAP 2020

SUBMITTED: November 18, 2020

IN RE: CANVASS OF ABSENTEE AND 

MAIL-IN BALLOTS OF NOVEMBER 3, 

2020 GENERAL ELECTION

APPEAL OF: DONALD J. TRUMP FOR 

PRESIDENT, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 33 EAP 2020

SUBMITTED: November 18, 2020

IN RE: CANVASS OF ABSENTEE AND 

MAIL-IN BALLOTS OF NOVEMBER 3, 

2020 GENERAL ELECTION

APPEAL OF: DONALD J. TRUMP FOR 

PRESIDENT, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 34 EAP 2020

SUBMITTED: November 18, 2020

IN RE: CANVASS OF ABSENTEE AND 

MAIL-IN BALLOTS OF NOVEMBER 3, 

2020 GENERAL ELECTION

APPEAL OF: DONALD J. TRUMP FOR 

PRESIDENT, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 35 EAP 2020

SUBMITTED: November 18, 2020
[J-118A-2020, J-118B-2020, J-118C-2020, J-118D-2020, J-118E-2020 and J-118F2020] [OAJC: Donohue, J.] - 2

IN RE: 2,349 BALLOTS IN THE 2020 

GENERAL ELECTION

APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY 

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 29 WAP 2020

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered 

November 19, 2020 at No. 1162 CD 

2020, reversing the Order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of 

Allegheny County entered November 

18, 2020 at No. GD 20-011654 and 

remanding

SUBMITTED: November 20, 2020

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY DECIDED: November 23, 2020

I concur in the decision to affirm the lower courts’ orders pertaining to ballots where 

the qualified electors failed to print their name and/or address on the outer envelope 

containing their absentee or mail-in ballots. However, I cannot agree that the obligation 

of electors to set forth the date they signed the declaration on that envelope does not 

carry “weighty interests.” Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (OAJC) at 30. 

I therefore respectfully dissent from the holding at Section III(2) of the OAJC which 

provides that the undated ballots may be counted. 

The applicable statutes require that electors “shall [ ] fill out, date and sign” the 

declaration printed on the ballot envelope. 25 P.S. §§3146.6(a), 3150.16(a). In my view,

the term “fill out” is subject to interpretation. Maybe it means printing one’s name and 

address on the envelope, and maybe it does not. Given that our goal in interpreting the 

Election Code is to construe ambiguous provisions liberally, in order to avoid 

disenfranchisement where possible, I do not consider the failure of qualified electors to 

“fill out” their name and address, particularly where the name and address already appear 
[J-118A-2020, J-118B-2020, J-118C-2020, J-118D-2020, J-118E-2020 and J-118F2020] [OAJC: Donohue, J.] - 3

on the other side of the envelope, to require disqualification of the ballot. I am further 

persuaded of this position by the fact that the blank spaces on the envelope indicating 

where the name and address should be “filled out” were designated by the Secretary, not 

the General Assembly. 25 P.S. §3146.4 (“Said form of declaration and envelope shall be 

as prescribed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth[.]”); see also Concurring and 

Dissenting Opinion at 12-13 (Wecht, J.). But, the meaning of the terms “date” and “sign” 

— which were included by the legislature — are self-evident, they are not subject to 

interpretation, and the statutory language expressly requires that the elector provide 

them. See In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 General Election, 843 A.2d 

1223, 1231 (Pa. 2004) (“[A]ll things being equal, the law will be construed liberally in favor 

of the right to vote but, at the same time, we cannot ignore the clear mandates of the 

Election Code.”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, I do not view the absence of a date as a 

mere technical insufficiency we may overlook. 

In my opinion, there is an unquestionable purpose behind requiring electors to date 

and sign the declaration. As Judge Brobson observed below, the date on the ballot 

envelope provides proof of when the “elector actually executed the ballot in full, ensuring 

their desire to cast it in lieu of appearing in person at a polling place. The presence of 

the date also establishes a point in time against which to measure the elector’s eligibility 

to cast the ballot[.]” In Re: 2,349 Ballots in the 2020 General Election, 1162 C.D. 2020, 

slip op. at 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. Nov. 19, 2020) (memorandum). The date also ensures the 

elector completed the ballot within the proper time frame and prevents the tabulation of

potentially fraudulent back-dated votes. Cf. In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of 

November 4, 2003 General Election, 843 A.2d at 1232-33 (statutory requirement that 

ballot be submitted by elector and not third-party is mandatory safeguard against fraud). I 

recognize there is presently no dispute that all undated ballots at issue here arrived in a 
[J-118A-2020, J-118B-2020, J-118C-2020, J-118D-2020, J-118E-2020 and J-118F2020] [OAJC: Donohue, J.] - 4

timely manner. But I am also cognizant that our interpretation of this relatively new statute 

will act as precedential guidance for future cases. 

Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Mundy join this concurring and dissenting opinion.