Bognet v. Sec'y Commonwealth of Pa.

Decision Date13 November 2020
Docket NumberNo. 20-3214,20-3214
Citation980 F.3d 336
Parties Jim BOGNET, Donald K. Miller, Debra Miller, Alan Clark, Jennifer Clark, Appellants v. SECRETARY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; Adams County Board of Elections; Allegheny County Board of Elections; Armstrong County Board of Elections; Beaver County Board of Elections; Bedford County Board of Elections; Berks County Board of Elections; Blair County Board of Elections; Bradford County Board of Elections; Bucks County Board of Elections; Butler County Board of Elections ; Cambria County Board of Elections; Cameron County Board of Elections; Carbon County Board of Elections; Centre County Board of Elections; Chester County Board of Elections; Clarion County Board of Elections; Clearfield County Board of Elections; Clinton County Board of Elections ; Columbia County Board of Elections; Crawford County Board of Elections; Cumberland County Board of Elections ; Dauphin County Board of Elections; Delaware County Board of Elections ; Elk County Board of Elections; Erie County Board of Elections; Fayette County Board of Elections; Forest County Board of Elections; Franklin County Board of Elections ; Fulton County Board of Elections; Greene County Board of Elections ; Huntingdon County Board of Elections; Indiana County Board of Elections; Jefferson County Board of Elections ; Juniata County Board of Elections; Lackawanna County Board of Elections; Lancaster County Board of Elections; Lawrence County Board of Elections ; Lebanon County Board of Elections; Lehigh County Board of Elections; Luzerne County Board of Elections; Lycoming County Board of Elections; Mckean County Board of Elections; Mercer County Board of Elections; Mifflin County Board of Elections; Monroe County Board of Elections; Montgomery County Board of Elections ; Montour County Board of Elections; Northampton County Board of Elections; Northumberland County Board of Elections; Perry County Board of Elections; Philadelphia County Board of Elections; Pike County Board of Elections ; Potter County Board of Elections; Schuylkill County Board of Elections; Snyder County Board of Elections; Somerset County Board of Elections; Sullivan County Board of Elections; Susquehanna County Board of Elections; Tioga County Board of Elections; Union County Board of Elections; Venango County Board of Elections; Warren County Board of Elections; Washington County Board of Elections; Wayne County Board of Elections; Westmoreland County Board of Elections; Wyoming County Board of Elections; York County Board of Elections Democratic National Committee, Intervenor
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Brian W. Barnes, Peter A. Patterson, David H. Thompson, Cooper & Kirk, 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, Counsel for Appellants

Mark A. Aronchick, Michele D. Hangley, Robert A. Wiygul, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, One Logan Square, 18th & Cherry Streets, 27th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, J. Bart DeLone, Sean A. Kirkpatrick, Keli M. Neary, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120, Dimitrios Mavroudis, Jessica Rickabaugh, Joe H. Tucker, Jr., Tucker Law Group, Ten Penn Center, 1801 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Elizabeth A. Dupuis, Molly E. Meachem, Babst Calland, 330 Innovation Boulevard, Suite 302, State College, PA 16803, Counsel for Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Centre Columbia, Dauphin, Fayette, Huntingdon, Indiana, Lackawanna, Lawrence, Northumberland, Venango, and York County Boards of Elections

Christine D. Steere, Deasey Mahoney & Valentini, 103 Chesley Drive, Lafayette Building, Suite 101, Media, PA 19063, Counsel for Berks County Board of Elections

Edward D. Rogers, Elizabeth V. Wingfield, Ballard Spahr, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Delaware County Board of Elections

Stephen B. Edwards, Frank J. Lavery, Jr., Andrew W. Norfleet, Lavery Law, 225 Market Street, Suite 304, P.O. Box 1245, Harrisburg, PA 17108, Counsel for Franklin and Perry County Boards of Elections

Thomas R. Shaffer, Glassmire & Shaffer Law Offices, 5 East Third Street, P.O. Box 509, Coudersport, PA 16915, Counsel for Potter County Board of Elections

Marc E. Elias, Uzoma Nkwonta, Courtney A. Elgart, Perkins Coie, 700 13th Street, N.W. Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20005, Counsel for Intervenor Democratic National Committee

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, SHWARTZ and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

SMITH, Chief Judge.

A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law. Alexander Hamilton1

The year 2020 has brought the country unprecedented challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began early this year and continues today, has caused immense loss and vast disruption. As this is a presidential election year, the pandemic has also presented unique challenges regarding where and how citizens shall vote, as well as when and how their ballots shall be tabulated. The appeal on which we now rule stems from the disruption COVID-19 has wrought on the national elections. We reach our decision, detailed below, having carefully considered the full breadth of statutory law and constitutional authority applicable to this unique dispute over Pennsylvania election law. And we do so with commitment to a proposition indisputable in our democratic process: that the lawfully cast vote of every citizen must count.

I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Elections and Presidential Electors Clause

The U.S. Constitution delegates to state "Legislature[s]" the authority to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives," subject to Congress's ability to "make or alter such Regulations." U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. This provision is known as the "Elections Clause." The Elections Clause effectively gives state governments the "default" authority to regulate the mechanics of federal elections, Foster v. Love , 522 U.S. 67, 69, 118 S.Ct. 464, 139 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997), with Congress retaining "exclusive control" to "make or alter" any state's regulations, Colegrove v. Green , 328 U.S. 549, 554, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946). Congress has not often wielded this power but, "[w]hen exercised, the action of Congress, so far as it extends and conflicts with the regulations of the State, necessarily supersedes them." Ex Parte Siebold , 100 U.S. 371, 384, 399, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) ("[T]he Constitution and constitutional laws of the [United States] are ... the supreme law of the land; and, when they conflict with the laws of the States, they are of paramount authority and obligation."). By statute, Congress has set "[t]he Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year," as the day for the election. 2 U.S.C. § 7.

Much like the Elections Clause, the "Electors Clause" of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of [Presidential] Electors." U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. Congress can "determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Congress has set the time for appointing electors as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President." 3 U.S.C. § 1.

This year, both federal statutes dictate that the day for the election was to fall on Tuesday, November 3 ("Election Day").

B. Pennsylvania's Election Code

In keeping with the Constitution's otherwise broad delegation of authority to states to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding federal elections, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has enacted a comprehensive elections code. In 2019, the General Assembly passed Act 77, which (among other things) established "no-excuse" absentee voting in Pennsylvania2 : all eligible voters in Pennsylvania may vote by mail without the need to show their absence from their voting district on the day of the election. 25 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. §§ 3150.11–3150.17. Under Act 77, "[a]pplications for mail-in ballots shall be processed if received not later than five o'clock P.M. of the first Tuesday prior to the day of any primary or election." Id. § 3150.12a(a). After Act 77, "a completed absentee [or mail-in] ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election" for that vote to count. Id . §§ 3146.6(c), 3150.16(c).

C. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision

Soon after Act 77's passage, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the Republican National Committee ("RNC"), and several Republican congressional candidates and voters brought suit against Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and all of Pennsylvania's county boards of elections. That suit, filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleged that Act 77's "no-excuse" mail-in voting regime violated both the federal and Pennsylvania constitutions. Donald J. Trump for Pres., Inc. v. Boockvar , No. 2:20-cv-966, ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, ––––, 2020 WL 4920952, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2020). Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and several Democratic elected officials and congressional candidates filed suit in Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to statutory-interpretation issues involving Act 77 and the Pennsylvania Election Code. See Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar , ––– Pa. ––––, 238 A.3d 345, 352 (2020). Secretary Boockvar asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to exercise...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • King v. Whitmer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • December 7, 2020
    ...control’ to ‘make or alter’ any state's regulations, Colegrove v. Green , 328 U.S. 549, 554, 66 S. Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946)." Bognet , 980 F.3d at 343. The "Electors Clause" of the Constitution states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a ......
  • Bowyer v. Ducey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • December 9, 2020
    ...with disapproval, noting that there was no precedent for expanding standing in the way that it did.7 See Bognet v. Sec'y of Commonwealth of Pa. , 980 F.3d 336, 351 n.6 (3d Cir. 2020) ("Our conclusion departs from the recent decision of an Eighth Circuit panel which, over a dissent, conclude......
  • Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • November 21, 2020
    ...important one for the parties. That day, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision in Bognet v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.32 This decision, though not factually connected to this matter, addressed issues of standing and equal protection relevant......
  • Parker v. Wolf
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • December 11, 2020
    ...678 (1974). Here, we struggle to conclude that the Mask Mandate distinctly affects Plaintiffs. See Bognet v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , 980 F.3d 336, 349 (3d Cir. 2020) ("When the alleged injury is undifferentiated and common to all members of the public, courts routinely dism......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Unpacking Third-Party Standing.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...barring same-sex marriage lacked standing to assert the state's right to defend that amendment on appeal); Bognet v. Sec'y of Pa., 980 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that individuals lacked standing to litigate the prerogatives of a state legislature concerning the method of conducting an......
  • ABUSING EMERGENCY POWERS: HOW THE SUPREME COURT DEGRADED VOTING RIGHTS PROTECTIONS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND OPENED THE DOOR FOR ABUSE OF STATE POWER.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 4, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...505 (11th Cir. 2020), vacated, Merrill v. People First of Ala., 141 S. Ct. 190 (2020). (332.) See Bognet v. Sec'y Commonwealth of Pa., 980 F.3d 336 (3d. Cir. 2020); Trump v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 983 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. (333.) Compare Common Cause R.I., 970 F.3d at 16-17 (1st Cir. 2020), wi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT