Missouri – A legal dispute over how mail-in ballots are handled has reached the nation’s highest court, drawing attention from attorneys general across the country who say the case could shape the balance of power between states and federal courts in future elections.
Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has taken the lead in organizing a coalition of 21 states urging the United States Supreme Court to review and overturn a recent federal appellate ruling that invalidated a Pennsylvania election rule requiring voters to handwrite the date on their mail-in ballots.
The rule, long part of the state’s election procedures, was struck down by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case known as Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections.
The coalition filed a legal brief supporting the Republican National Committee’s request that the Supreme Court take up the case. At the center of the dispute is a simple but contentious requirement: when casting a ballot by mail, voters must write the date on the envelope containing their ballot.
Read also: Kansas City builds coordinated public safety system with launch of Community Safety Department
Hanaway criticized the appellate court’s decision, arguing that it stepped beyond its judicial role and intruded into authority traditionally reserved for state governments. She said the ruling represents an example of “legislating from the bench,” asserting that the Constitution clearly grants states the power to determine how elections are conducted.
“Our founding fathers intentionally gave election authority to the States. They would be appalled that our courts have concluded that requiring voters to date their ballot is unconstitutional. My Office will continue to stand up for commonsense rules that prevent fraud and ensure election integrity,” Hanaway said in a statement.
According to Missouri’s legal brief, the appellate ruling sets a troubling precedent that could expand the power of federal courts over election procedures nationwide. The coalition argues that decisions about how ballots are cast and counted have historically been handled by state legislatures, reflecting local needs and policies.
The states involved in the filing say the Pennsylvania dating requirement is a straightforward administrative step designed to support orderly elections. They contend that the measure helps election officials maintain reliable records, organize ballot processing, and discourage potential fraud.
In their argument to the Supreme Court, the coalition emphasized that the Court has never previously determined that a neutral rule governing how ballots are cast constitutes a severe burden on the right to vote. From their perspective, asking voters to write the date on a mail-in ballot envelope represents a minimal requirement that serves legitimate government interests.
If the appellate ruling is allowed to stand, the coalition warns, federal judges could increasingly strike down basic election procedures enacted by state legislatures. Such a shift, they argue, would erode the constitutional framework that assigns states primary authority over election administration.
Alongside Missouri, attorneys general from 20 additional states joined the filing. The coalition includes Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
The states are asking the Supreme Court to grant review of the case and ultimately reverse the 3rd Circuit’s decision. Their filing frames the issue not simply as a dispute over one election rule, but as a broader question about the constitutional boundaries between federal courts and state governments in shaping election law.
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case.
The full amicus brief can be read here.
