Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a772_h3dj.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

RITTER v. MIGLIORI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

To illustrate why the Third Circuit’s interpretation is suf-
ficiently questionable and important to merit review, I offer 
the following thoughts on the interpretation of the statute
in question.  As I will explain, it appears to me, based on
the review that I have been able to conduct in the time al-
lowed, that the Third Circuit’s interpretation is very likely 
wrong.  It seems plainly contrary to the statutory language,
but as is almost always the case when we decide whether to 
grant emergency relief, I do not rule out the possibility that 
further briefing and argument might convince me that my 
current view is unfounded.  But with that caveat, I will pro-
ceed to discuss the statutory language. 

The statutory provision in question reads as follows: 

“No person acting under color of law shall . . . deny
the right of any individual to vote in any election be-
cause  of  an  error  or  omission  on  any  record  or  paper
related  to  any  application,  registration,  or  other  act
requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not ma-
terial in determining whether such individual is quali-
fied  under  State  law  to  vote  in  such  election.” 
§10101(a)(2)(B). 

This provision has five elements: (1) the proscribed con-
duct must be engaged in by a person who is “acting under
color  of  law”;  (2)  it  must  have  the  effect  of  “deny[ing]”  an
individual  “the  right  to  vote”;  (3)  this  denial  must  be  at-
tributable to “an error or omission on [a] record or paper”;
(4) the “record or paper” must be  “related to [an] applica-
tion, registration, or other act requisite to voting”; and (5) 
the error or omission must not be “material in determining
whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote
in such election.”  Ibid. 

The Third Circuit held that the failure to count mail-in 
ballots  that  did  not  include  the  date  on  which  they  were
filled out constituted a  violation of this provision, but the