Centre County board accepts 29 mail‑in ballots with county receipt stamps, rejects 4 undated envelopes

The Centre County Board of Elections on Wednesday accepted 29 mail‑in ballots that lacked a voter date on the outer envelope but showed a Centre County Elections Office return stamp, and voted to invalidate and segregate four ballots that did not bear an internal county receipt stamp.

The action came during the board’s review of “date issue” ballots from the May 20 municipal primary. Melanie, elections staff, said, “We didn't have any more, or overseas or military ballots that came in.” Board members discussed 33 envelopes that either had no date, a partial date, or a date outside the acceptable range; staff told the board 15 had no or partial dates and 14 had dates outside the accepted window.

The board moved, seconded and approved a motion to count 29 envelopes that bore the Centre County Elections Office receipt stamp and to reject four envelopes that lacked any internal county stamp. The motion included a friendly amendment to segregate all challenged envelopes "as requested by the Department of State," and the board recorded the motion as passing unanimously.

Board members and staff repeatedly said the remaining unresolved envelopes would be kept separate and not “disappear into the ether.” A board member urged that the Pennsylvania court system clarify county responsibilities for handling undated or otherwise irregular absentee envelopes before the next major election, saying decisions made “on the fly at the last minute is not good policy.” Staff noted the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has a briefing schedule in the related litigation but that an argument date had not been set; board members said any appellate ruling could affect county practice statewide.

Two additional ballots for which voters were asked to supply identification had a 5 p.m. deadline on election day and were left for later resolution. Staff also noted two ballots that had generated a message in the ballot tracking system saying additional information was required and those ballots had not yet arrived.

Procedural steps taken at the meeting included opening outer and inner envelopes to confirm security envelopes and separating ballots so counters would not see identifying information. Staff said ballots that were accepted would be processed through tabulation equipment following routine checks. The board stressed that the four segregated envelopes were not counted at this meeting and could only be counted later if a court or other authorized body changed the legal standard.

The board set no new policy in the meeting beyond the immediate motion; members said they were following current Department of State guidance and would await any clarifying court decisions.

Minutes from the meeting record that the board intends to preserve the segregated envelopes for any future deliberation or legal challenge and that staff will tighten intake processes to reduce the chance that envelopes miss the receipt stamper in the mail processing chain.