The boards solicitor briefed members on several legal developments affecting ballot processing and election procedures.

On federal litigation, the solicitor said a petition for en banc review in the Third Circuit remains pending regarding whether ballots with missing or incorrect dates on mail or absentee ballot outer envelopes can be counted. "That decision has not come down," the solicitor said, and he did not expect an en banc ruling before election day. He explained that an en banc decision would only determine whether the full court should rehear the case; a merits decision would follow later if the court agreed to rehear it.

On state law matters, the solicitor summarized a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision arising from Washington County that held jurisdictions cannot mislead voters by telling them a ballot was "processed" if that communication prevents a voter from curing a defect. "Once you notify [a voter], that notification needs to be clear so that they're not confused because they're denied the opportunity to fix a problem," the solicitor said. The county reported it already uses a notice-and-cure policy in which ballots with facial defects (for example, missing signature on the outer envelope) trigger a cancellation notice with instructions on how to cure the problem.

The solicitor also noted a recent local pro se filing alleging procedural problems with a component of the countys verification process. The filing raises issues similar to prior litigation about verification steps; county staff said they expected to respond in court as necessary but that the EACs written review of the countys Verity 2.7 process weighs in the countys favor.

Ending: County officials said the cases are active and that current policy and notice-and-cure procedures will remain in place; staff will inform the board if court actions require different handling of ballots or notification practices.