RITE Argues State’s Election Law Guards Against Irregularities And Boosts Confidence In Democracy
WASHINGTON, DC – On Monday, RITE submitted an amicus brief in Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections that asks the court to reject arguments from activist attorneys who are misapplying the Civil Rights Act, a seminal law that ensures no American is ever disqualified from voting based on their race.
Pennsylvania law is straightforward, requiring voters to “fill out, date and sign” their mail-in ballot envelopes. Activists can’t convincingly argue that the “materiality provision” applies because the law simply does not address the counting of late, unsigned, or undated ballots. And even if it did, only the U.S. Department of Justice would have cause to sue a state for imposing such a requirement on voters.
RITE helped secure a definitive ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that state officials had to enforce the date requirement in the 2022 election and all future elections. RITE has submitted a brief in this new case to defend that victory. RITE is also active in combating a similar effort to misuse the materiality provision in Florida, where a different Elias-affiliated left-wing group has invoked it in yet another junk lawsuit challenging commonsense measures that protect election integrity and promote voter confidence in democracy.
“This case is an opportunity for the courts to reject liberal activists’ latest attempt to misuse federal law to invalidate reasonable election rules that promote integrity and trust throughout the country,” said Derek Lyons, President and CEO of RITE. “Their reading of the materiality provision distorts the text of the law and lacks any existing precedent. Election rules, including Pennsylvania’s date requirement, are needed to ensure the authenticity of mail-ballots, which are cast outside the view of election officials and the public, risking fraud, coercion, and other irregularities. The date requirement at issue here has been used to prevent voter fraud. In a recent case, the date of the declaration was the only evidence proving that the vote was fraudulent.”
RITE makes the following arguments to show that the date requirement is an uncontroversial rule entirely consistent with the Civil Rights Act:
- The materiality provision prohibits the unfair disqualification of voters; it does not require the counting of ballots that do not conform to state law
- The materiality provision only applies to improper activity by election officials; it cannot invalidate duly enacted laws that define what counts as a valid ballot
Read a copy of RITE’s amicus brief HERE.
###
