Voting booths setup and ready for voters in Butler on a previous Election day. Eagle File photo

The county commissioners had mixed reactions to Wednesday’s state Supreme Court ruling that requires counties to count mail-in and absentee ballots submitted without the outer secrecy envelope that is required by law.

Pennsylvania’s high court issued its ruling in an appeal of a county case involving two county voters whose mail-in ballots for the April primary were rejected by the county election bureau because they didn’t place their ballots in the provided secrecy envelopes. They then voted in-person using provisional ballots, but those ballots were rejected by the computation return board.

The two voters appealed to Commonwealth Court, which ruled that voters can cast provisional ballots if defects are found in their mail-in and absentee ballots.

The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court, which issued a split decision in favor of the voters Faith Genser of Zelienople and Frank Matis of Center Township.

The county’s ballot curing policy does not include ballots not placed in the secrecy envelope, but Leslie Osche, chairman of the commissioners, said she believes the Department of State’s will track ballots and advise voters to use provisional ballots.

“It will increase the number of provisional ballots, which are not opened until the Friday after the election. So knowing final results in close races could take a few extra days,” Osche said.

Provisional ballots case by voters who don’t use the secrecy envelope will be counted, and the county will review possible implications and adjust procedures for mail-in ballots as needed, she said.

“We must continue to remind voters to make sure they use their secrecy envelope to avoid the need to go to the polls to vote provisionally,” Osche said.

Commissioner Kim Geyer said the county did not count the two provisional ballots in accordance with state law.

“Since 2019, when PA Act 77 was implemented, counties have been furiously carrying out the election laws on the books. Defective ballots described as having no secrecy envelope, or no date or signature on the exterior envelope were not to be counted,” Geyer said. “Why have these provisions in the statutory law of Act 77 of 2019, if we are not going to abide by them?”

She emphasized that the county is not trying to disenfranchise voters, but people should know what is taking place because of ambiguities in state election laws and Legislature’s failure to address needed reforms.

Advocacy groups and the Department of State, which filed a brief in support of allowing the provisional ballots to be counted, are using the courts to rewrite election laws, Geyer said.

“The bottom line is this, counties are following the laws on the books, are then sued in court and the courts are making the final determination. Counties then are required to carry out the Supreme Court’s ruling,” Geyer said.

County commissioner Kevin Boozel said the ruling allows provisional voting as a cure to any defective ballot.

He said he expects more voters to request provisional ballots at polling places as a result of the ruling, and the county should prepare to count them.

“I know there is estimated 130 ballots that may have the potential to be cured due to signature, date, naked ballot and any combination of those (defects),” Boozel said. Naked ballots are mail-in ballot submitted without the secrecy envelope.

Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and Daniel McCaffery formed the majority, and Justices Sallie Updyke Mundy, P. Kevin Brobson and David Wecht dissented.