The Supreme Court rejected Republicans’ request to stop Pennsylvania officials from counting the provisional ballots of voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected due to technical glitches.

The high court’s order follows Wednesday’s permission order a GOP-backed purge of Virginia voter rolls before Election Day. He order of virginia It was introduced due to the dissent of the court’s three Democratic appointees.

In the Pennsylvania case, the state Supreme Court split 4-3 by upholding a lower court ruling that required the recount of provisional ballots submitted by voters who were told their mail-in ballots cannot be counted. “Provisional ballots exist as a security measure to preserve access to the right to vote,” the state court said, noting that such ballots can only be counted if a voter’s other ballots are not counted.

“The General Assembly drafted the Election Code for the purpose of allowing citizens to exercise their right to vote, not for the purpose of creating obstacles to voting,” the state court majority said.

Pennsylvania, a key swing state, was decided by about 80,000 votes in the election of Joe Biden. victory 2020 above Donald Trump and by approximately 44,000 votes in Trump’s vote 2016 victory about Hillary Clinton. The 2024 race between Trump and Kamala Harris is also expected to be close.

Friday’s action by the Supreme Court comes amid Trump-backed efforts to stoke unfounded accusations of electoral fraud in the battleground state.

Republicans seek to stop Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling told the judges that the case “is of utmost public importance and could affect tens of thousands of votes in a state that many anticipate could be decisive in control of the United States Senate or even in the 2024 presidential election.” Alternatively, the GOP asked the court to at least order that such provisional ballots be kept separate from the official count, so the justices can fully review Pennsylvania’s ruling after Election Day.

Justice Samuel Alito issued a statement accompanying the order, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. saying that This is a matter of “considerable importance,” but staying the state court ruling would not impose any binding obligations on state officials responsible for this year’s elections.

Alito noted that the dispute arose from just two voters coming from the already completed primary elections. “And because the only partisan state election officials in this case are members of a small county election board, we cannot order other election boards to sequester affected ballots,” he wrote.

While the case is important in its own right, it also implicates broader principles about judicial intervention. close to the elections and the balance of power between state legislatures, state courts, and the United States Supreme Court in election cases.

A opposition notice The two voters whose provisional ballots started the case said the RNC “seeks what can only be described as a change in state law on the eve of the election by a federal court, a change that, at least according to the RNC itself, it would be highly disturbing.” , altering the treatment of ‘tens of thousands of provisional votes’ and could even involve ‘reversing’ the result of ‘one or more elections in Pennsylvania.'”

Subscribe to Deadline: Legal Bulletin for expert analysis on the week’s top legal stories, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.