Sep 30, 2025 By Mike Jones 7 min read

Washington County election officials must notify voters about disqualifying errors with their mail-in ballots through an automated email sent by the state’s election system and allow people to cast a provisional ballot if they desire, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a 4-3 decision that will have ramifications across the state, the high court ruled that people must be informed of fatal flaws with their mail-in ballots – such as missing signatures or incorrect dates – and be permitted to vote using a provisional ballot at their polling place on election day as a “fail-safe” for voters.

The 67-page majority opinion written by Justice Kevin Dougherty does not prescribe a “ballot-curing” requirement or mandate that elections offices let voters come in to fix mistakes they made on their mail-in ballot envelopes. Voters must at least be notified through the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors system, or SURE, by receiving an automated email that gives them instructions on how to vote using a provisional ballot if their mail-in vote won’t be counted.

“But this case is not about do-overs. It is not about correcting a defective mail-in ballot return packet. It is not about a ‘second bite’ at the proverbial apple, and it is not about double-voting,” Dougherty wrote in his opinion. “It is about allowing a voter who made a mistake on a mail-in ballot return packet – the kind of mistake that will likely disqualify the ballot and invalidate the elector’s attempt to vote – to avail herself of the remaining ‘fail-safe’ attempt to exercise her fundamental right: completing a provisional ballot on Election Day.”

Seven voters in Washington County sued the county’s elections board in July 2024 claiming officials violated their constitutional rights by not informing them of flaws with their mail-in ballots that disqualified them from being counted, thus never giving them an opportunity to fix the mistake. Nearly 300 mail-in ballots submitted ahead of the April 2024 primary were not counted due to various flaws, including 259 that had mistakes such as missing signatures or dates on the outer envelope that could have been corrected if county elections workers were permitted to notify voters there was an issue.

Washington County Judge Brandon Neuman ruled in August 2024 that voters should receive some form of notification and be allowed to vote using a provisional ballot if the mail-in vote was ultimately disqualified by the county’s canvassing board. That decision was appealed by the county to the state Commonwealth Court, which affirmed Neuman’s ruling last September, and it was again appealed to the state Supreme Court, which ruled after nearly a year of review. While the appeals were pending, the county’s elections office called voters with mistakes and informed them they could vote provisionally.

The Supreme Court on Friday largely affirmed Neuman’s original ruling, with minor tweaks since the county’s elections board had since made changes in how it notified voters through the SURE system.

Dougherty wrote in his opinion that “the Election Code created a statutory right to cast a provisional ballot as a ‘failsafe’ to ensure otherwise qualified electors can have their vote counted, and that casting a provisional ballot does not ‘cure’ a defective mail-in ballot.” His opinion states that an incorrectly filled out mail-in ballot return envelope will be disqualified and the voter will have to make the decision whether to take the time to cast a provisional ballot on election day.

“If (a voter’s) segregated mail-in ballot is ultimately discarded, then her provisional vote will count – this is one vote, not two. Similarly, if her segregated mail-in ballot is ultimately counted, then the provisional vote is thrown away – this is one vote, not two. In both scenarios, however, the only way the elector gets her single vote counted is to be given the easily accessible information that was intentionally withheld in this case,” Dougherty wrote in his opinion.

Dougherty was joined in the majority by Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justices Christine Donohue and Daniel McCaffery. Justices David Wecht, Sallie Updyke Mundy and P. Kevin Brobson cast dissenting votes, with the two latter justices writing dissenting opinions.

In her dissent, Mundy questioned the fairness of notifying voters of their defective mail-in ballots only through emails generated through the SURE system since not everyone may have access to the internet.

“The SURE email notice system fosters an uneven election process because electors are not required to provide their email addresses when applying for a mail-in ballot, and not all electors have home internet access and the ability to readily access their email,” Mundy states in her dissenting opinion. “Further, the lack of uniformity among counties’ policies for notifying voters beyond the SURE System further contributes to the inequality in elections.”

While the high court now mandates that elections offices notify people with an automated email through the SURE system, other counties in Pennsylvania might go above and beyond that requirement. In recent elections, Fayette County has sent letters to voters with disqualified mail-in ballots, while Greene County lists voters who sent in defective ballots and encourages local party committees to notify them.

“The Majority sets the floor for the process required, i.e., all counties must now enter accurate codes into the SURE System, but it does not preclude counties from taking additional steps to contact voters or to compile and publish lists of voters who have submitted defective mail-in ballots,” Mundy wrote.

In his dissent, Brobson noted that the Washington County Board of Elections took the right position by informing voters in emails that their mail-in ballots were “returned” since technically any decision on whether they are accepted or disqualified can’t be made until pre-canvassing begins at 7 a.m. on election day.

“The Majority, however, ignores that the appropriate SURE code was, in fact, ‘Record – Ballot Returned,’ because the Board has no authority to cancel or disqualify a ballot under the Election Code prior to the pre-canvassing and canvassing process,” Brobson wrote.

Washington County Commission Chairman Nick Sherman, who alongside fellow Republican Commissioner Electra Janis voted at the elections board meeting April 2024 not to allow ballot curing while Democratic Commissioner Larry Maggi wanted to allow it, suggested the ongoing rulings have muddied the waters for mail-in ballots. However, Sherman said the county would follow the state Supreme Court’s ruling, as it did following Neuman’s order last year.

“Here’s the bottom line, we will always execute our elections in observation of state and federal law,” Sherman said. “Whether I disagree or agree with the decision, we will always follow the law.”

All of this could change again since the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that dates on return envelopes are not required for mail-in ballots to be accepted in Pennsylvania, although that is now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“You have the state telling us something and the federal government telling us something else,” Sherman said. “It is what it is. Just tell us what to do.”

The lawsuit in Washington County became a proxy war on the ballot-curing issue, with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Center for Coalfield Justice, Public Interest Law Center and Washington NAACP representing the seven voters and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and Republican National Convention intervening on behalf of the county.

“This is a significant victory for voters in Washington County and across the commonwealth,” said Mike Lee, who is executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “When Washington County decided not to notify voters of mistakes on their mail ballot, it wasn’t just disenfranchising them, it was denying them due process. Since the implementation of mail voting in Pennsylvania, ACLU-PA has been on the frontlines to ensure that every Pennsylvania voter can cast a mail ballot with the same confidence that they bring to their polling station.”

All 67 counties in Pennsylvania will now have to follow the protocol by having election workers review return mail-in ballots and correctly categorize them in the SURE system – which has drop-down menu options – that will automatically generate emails informing voters of their ballot’s status.

The state Department of State did not respond before press time with a request for comment on whether elections would be able to comply with the high court’s ruling as mail-in ballots are expected to be sent out early next month ahead of the Nov. 4 general election.