Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BOOCKVAR 

Statement of ALITO, J. 

enacted in March 2020, the legislature addressed election-
related issues caused by the pandemic, but it chose not to 
amend  the deadline for  the receipt  of mailed  ballots.   See 
Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2020–12. 
  In  the  face  of  Act  77’s  deadline,  the  Pennsylvania  Su-
preme Court, by a vote of four to three, decreed that mailed 
ballots need not be received by election day.  App. to Pet. for 
Cert. 80a–81a.  Instead, it imposed a different rule: Ballots 
are to be treated as timely if they are postmarked on or be-
fore election day and are received within three days there-
after.  Id., at 48a.  In addition, the court ordered that a bal-
lot  with  no  postmark  or  an  illegible  postmark  must  be 
regarded as timely if it is received by that same date.  Id., 
at 48a, n. 26.  The court expressly acknowledged that the 
statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was 
unambiguous and that its abrogation of that rule was not 
based  on  an  interpretation  of  the  statute.    Id.,  at  43a.    It 
further conceded that the statutory deadline was constitu-
tional on its face, but it claimed broad power to do what it 
thought was needed to respond to a “natural disaster,” and 
it justified its decree as necessary to protect voters’ rights 
under  the  Free  and  Equal  Elections  Clause  of  the  State 
Constitution.  Id., at 44a, 45a–47a. 
  A month ago, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and 
the Pennsylvania Senate leaders asked this Court to stay 
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision pending the fil-
ing and disposition of a petition for certiorari.  See Republi-
can Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 20A54; Scarnati 
v. Boockvar, No. 20A53.  They argued that the state court 
decision violated the previously cited constitutional provi-
sions, as well as the federal statute setting a uniform date 
for  federal  elections.    Application  for  Stay  in  No.  20A54, 
p. 2; Application for Stay in No. 20A53, pp. 2–3.  Respond-
ent, Democratic Party of Pennsylvania (DPP), agreed that 
the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision 
was a matter of national importance and urged us to grant 
review and to decide the issue before the election.  DPP Re-