Pennsylvania
How Courts Are Impacting 2024 Election: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Shuts Down RNC Effort To Disqualify Voters
Topline
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that voters whose mail-in ballots are rejected can still cast provisional ballots, after the Republican National Committee sued to stop the practice, as courts across the country are issuing a flurry of last-minute rulings on ballots and how elections are run in the month before Election Day as parties seek to expand or limit voter access.
A polling station in Hawthorne, California, on March 5.
Timeline
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected because of defects—like issues with their signature or the date—can cast provisional ballots to make sure they can vote, after the RNC defended a county’s decision to stop those voters from casting ballots if their mail votes were rejected.
The Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling blocking new voting rules from taking effect—like a requirement to hand-count ballots and other provisions that Democrats warned could delay the election results from being certified—which means that while litigation will continue, the rules will not be in effect during the general election.
A federal judge dismissed a Republican National Committee-led lawsuit in Michigan that took issue with voter rolls in the state, alleging the number of voters was “impossibly high” and the state wasn’t removing voters from their rolls as required by law, with the judge ruling the plaintiffs didn’t provide enough evidence there was any wrongdoing.
Judges in Michigan and North Carolina rejected lawsuits brought by the RNC challenging overseas voters casting a ballot in those states even if they’ve never actually lived there—for instance, if their parents or spouse lived there—with the Michigan judge calling it an “11th hour attempt to disenfranchise” those voters.
A federal judge in Nevada dismissed an RNC lawsuit challenging the state’s voter rolls—claiming, like in Michigan, that the number of voters was “impossibly high”—throwing out the lawsuit for a second time and ruling the plaintiffs hadn’t provided any “concrete specifics” of wrongdoing.
A Trump-appointed judge in North Carolina struck down a Republican lawsuit aiming to remove 225,000 voters from the state’s voter rolls, alleging fraud, with the judge ruling that removing those voters would move the state “away from a democratic form of government.”
The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled convicted felons can vote in the state after they’ve completed their sentence, striking down an effort by the state to prevent them from voting as Nebraska could become pivotal to determining which presidential candidate wins the Electoral College.
A federal judge blocked a program in Alabama that purged voters from the voter rolls—claiming doing so would help prevent noncitizens from voting—after the Justice Department sued to stop the program because it was too close to the election.
A lower Georgia state judge blocked the new election rules in Georgia that could have potentially delayed the vote certification, after Democrats argued the state election board’s new rules could cause “chaos” in November.
The Ohio Supreme Court upheld restrictions on ballot drop boxes, after the state enacted new limitations saying people dropping off ballots for voters with disabilities have to go into an election office rather than leaving the ballot in a drop box.
A Georgia state judge issued a judgment saying state election workers must certify their county’s election results—regardless of whether they think any ballots were fraudulent—after an official who had refused to certify results in the past asked for clarification and more than a dozen local officials have voted against certifying in recent years.
A federal judge rejected an effort by conservatives to require Arizona to confirm voters’ citizenship ahead of the election.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to take up two voting cases after Democrats challenged counties throwing out ballots with incorrect or missing dates, and Republicans opposed some county officials letting voters correct issues with their mail-in ballots, which should not be allowed under state law.
What To Watch For
There are many outstanding cases that still have to be decided by Election Day, with Marc Elias, a voting rights attorney aligned with the Democratic Party, reporting Sunday that 191 cases are pending in 39 states. The Justice Department has sued Virginia for challenging voters’ eligibility too close to the election, for instance, and Georgia Republicans are appealing the ruling against the state election board’s new rules. The RNC has filed lawsuits taking aim at voting practices, including alleging Fulton County, Georgia, did not hire enough Republican poll workers. More lawsuits are also likely to be filed and rapidly decided in the two weeks before Election Day.
What We Don’t Know
What will happen after Election Day. Close election results in any battleground state could prompt a slew of lawsuits over how ballots are counted and the election results, as happened in 2020 when the Trump campaign launched a wide-ranging legal campaign challenging the vote count. Battleground states are already preparing for an anticipated onslaught of post-election lawsuits, Reuters reports, with Arizona’s court system ordering judges to prioritize election lawsuits so that certification doesn’t get delayed. Republican and Democratic campaigns are also gearing up for a busy legal landscape: An RNC official told ABC News the party has 5,000 volunteer attorneys ready to be deployed on Election Day, and ABC cited an internal memo from Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign that claims it is “the most prepared campaign in history for what we face” in terms of litigation.
Chief Critic
Democrats have heavily criticized Republicans for the rash of lawsuits they’ve brought ahead of Election Day and are likely to continue filing, arguing the GOP is trying to sow doubt in the election results even before they’ve come in. “We’re seeing a record number of lawsuits filed before the election—nearly every day—in a seemingly coordinated push to use the legitimacy of the courts to lay the groundwork for discrediting an unfavorable result,” Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Democracy Program, told ABC News. “The lawsuits are not about getting legal relief, but about spreading conspiracy theories.” Many of the GOP lawsuits that have been brought are based on concerns about election irregularities or fraud, such as noncitizen voting or mail-in ballots, even though evidence has shown election fraud is exceedingly rare and there is no evidence of any widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
Key Background
Republicans have ramped up legal challenges and tightened voting rules since the 2020 election. Trump and his allies filed at least 60 lawsuits challenging the vote count in 2020 as the then-president made baseless allegations of fraud, and Republicans have used Trump’s fraud allegations as an underpinning for their litigation challenging voting rules. GOP-led states have also pointed to Trump’s baseless claims to justify enacting their own tighter restrictions on voting ahead of the 2024 election, which Democrats have then challenged in court. The RNC announced in April it intended to make its litigation efforts a key part of its strategy in the general election, launching an extensive “election integrity” effort with 100,000 staffers and volunteers. Chief Counsel Charlie Spies said in a statement the “RNC legal team will be working tirelessly to ensure that elections officials follow the rules” and “will aggressively take them to court if they don’t.”
Further Reading
Judge Thwarts GOP Georgia Election Officials—Says Board Must Certify Vote Counts (Forbes)
Georgia Judge Blocks Hand-Counting Ballot Rule In Blow To State’s GOP Election Officials (Forbes)
More Than 165 Lawsuits Are Already Shaping the 2024 US Presidential Election (Bloomberg)
‘The litigation election’: Trump and Harris teams head to court in flurry of pre-election lawsuits (ABC News)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania-born indie rockers Tigers Jaw return with new album release
The chorus for the song “Primary Colors” was something Walsh wrote years ago, with the song’s outro originally being used as a verse.
“And something just wasn’t quite clicking, and everything that I tried felt kind of forced,” Walsh said. “We were all just like, ‘Yeah, there’s something here, but it’s not quite doing what I think it has the potential to do.’”
The band then started toying with the dynamics between the verses and the chorus.
“It just unlocked something for me in the idea where I was like, ‘Wow, this kind of quiet, loud, quiet, loud format really works well with this song,’” Walsh said. “So yeah, it just transformed it instantly into an idea that felt a lot stronger.”
The album was recorded with Grammy-winning producer Will Yip, a relationship still budding from their 2014 album, “Charmer.” Collins said the new album’s sound is “as true as we could be to playing the record live.”
“I wasn’t as tied to the tones that have classically been Tigers Jaw because I think at this point, I’ve just come to this realization that no matter what, if we’re making it, it is Tigers Jaw,” Collins said.
The new album has a “palpable energy” that shares the same spirit as their earlier records, Walsh said. And while “tastes evolve,” the band followed “what feels good.”
“This is the best representation of the band at the time, and it’s almost like a snapshot of us as artists, as people, as a creative entity over this time in our career,” he said.
“Lost On You” is out now through Hopeless Records and is available on vinyl, CD and various streaming platforms.
On April 16, Tigers Jaw will perform at Union Transfer at 8 p.m. They will be supported by Hot Flash Heat Wave and Creeks, the solo project of Balance and Composure vocalist and guitarist Jon Simmons, who is from Doylestown, Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania court upends mandatory use of life-without-parole for second-degree murder
What to Know
- Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court says the state cannot automatically give life without parole for felony murder without weighing each defendant’s culpability in the killing.
- The high court on Thursday ordered a new sentencing hearing for Derek Lee over a second-degree conviction, but paused it for four months to give state lawmakers time to consider legislation in response.
- Pennsylvania law has made people liable for second-degree murder if they participated in an eligible felony that led to death. Life with no possibility of parole has been the only possible sentence.
- The court says the current rule treats a lookout the same as the person who kills.
Pennsylvania’s high court on Thursday overturned the use of automatic life sentences without parole for people convicted of second-degree murder, saying it violates the state’s constitutional ban on cruel punishment when imposed without a closer look at the defendant’s specific role and culpability.
The court majority ordered resentencing in the case of Derek Lee, convicted of a 2014 killing in Pittsburgh, but the decision also has implications for others among the roughly 1,000 other inmates currently serving similar second-degree murder sentences.
The court’s order was put on hold for four months to give the General Assembly time to “consider appropriate remedial measures.” In a footnote, the justices said they were ruling on Lee’s sentence and not addressing “questions of retroactivity.”
Prison reform groups hailed it as a landmark decision, while the Allegheny County district attorney’s office said it will follow the court’s order.
Pennsylvania law has made people liable for second-degree murder if they participated in an eligible felony that led to death, and life without parole has been the only possible sentence.
“The mandatory penalty scheme of life without parole for all offenders convicted of second degree murder fails to assess individual culpability regarding the intent to kill, and mandates the same punishment regardless of that culpability,” wrote Chief Justice Debra Todd in the lead opinion. She characterized it as not distinguishing “between the lookout, and the killer who pulls the trigger.”
The state high court’s decision comes after years of advocacy to undo mandatory life without parole sentences both in Pennsylvania and nationally. Nazgol Ghandnoosh of the Washington-based Sentencing Project said she counts 11 states and the federal system as having such laws for that kind of crime, sometimes called felony murder. Several states — California, Colorado and Minnesota — have moved away from that sentencing framework in recent years, she said.
Justice Kevin Dougherty noted in a separate opinion that unlike those convicted of first-degree murder, defendants serving life without parole for second-degree murder have “never been found by a judge or jury to have harbored the specific intent to kill” and may not have had “any involvement whatsoever with the actual killing. He or she does not even have to expect or foresee that a life may be taken.”
Lee’s lawyers had wanted the court to rule that life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for all second-degree murder convictions in Pennsylvania, said Quinn Cozzens, a staff attorney for the Abolitionist Law Center, which helped represent Lee. Instead, the court ruled that trial judges must examine the individual circumstances of a defendant’s case to decide which sentence is most appropriate, including the potential of life without parole.
The state’s public defenders’ association said the ruling will generate new post-conviction litigation and require them to do more investigation as well as develop “strategic litigation” to get the decision to apply retroactively.
A jury convicted Lee of second-degree murder but acquitted him of first-degree murder in 44-year-old Leonard Butler’s shooting death. Butler was shot in a struggle over a gun with Lee’s codefendant, Paul Durham.
Prosecutors argued it should be up to state lawmakers and the executive branch to address the policy issues surrounding second-degree murder sentences. Todd wrote that while the district attorney’s office “acknowledges that there may be persuasive arguments why a non-slayer should not be held to the same degree of culpability as the slayer, it stresses that these are policy decisions for the General Assembly.”
Cozzens urged lawmakers to “address this constitutional violation, given that the court granted them the opportunity to do so.”
Rep. Tim Briggs, a suburban Philadelphia Democrat who chairs the state House Judiciary Committee, said he planned to engage with Senate Republicans on potential legislation in response.
Briggs said he wanted to have decision apply retroactively, to give people serving life “for being the getaway driver” to “have the opportunity to have their facts looked at again.”
“I think inaction leaves a lot of this up to the courts to decide. I don’t feel comfortable doing that,” Briggs said. “We have a policymaking role here.”
Justice Sallie Mundy wrote that Lee “willingly participated in an armed home invasion and robbery, and purposefully engaged in assaultive behavior in the form of tasing and pistol-whipping the victim.” She said Lee and Durham “arguably kidnapped the victims by forcing them into the basement” and it will be up to the county judge to decide if Lee’s life-without-parole sentence is appropriate.
Todd’s opinion, citing an advocacy group, said 73% of those convicted of felony murder in Pennsylvania were 25 or younger when the killing occurred and almost 70% are Black people.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also responded to the ruling on X.
Today, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for second degree murder are unconstitutional.
I have long believed this law is unjust and wrong. As Governor, I took legal action in this case arguing to strike down this…
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 26, 2026
Pennsylvania
Teen boys in Pennsylvania get probation after using AI to create fake nude photos of classmates
LANCASTER, Pa. — Two teenage boys who used artificial intelligence to create fake nude photos of their classmates at an exclusive private school in Pennsylvania received probation Wednesday after dozens of victims described the images’ traumatizing effect on them.
The boys were 14 at the time. They admitted this month that they made about 350 images, showing at least 59 girls under 18, along with other victims who so far have not been identified.
Authorities said the boys took images of the girls from school photos, yearbooks, Instagram, TikTok and FaceTime chats in 2023 and 2024, and morphed them with images of adults depicting nudity or sexual activity.
More than 100 students and parents from Lancaster Country Day School were in court to hear victims describe the shock of having to identify their own faces in pornographic photos to detectives. Juvenile proceedings in Pennsylvania are normally closed, but this was opened by the judge, providing an unusual opportunity for the community to be seen and heard.
The girls described the fallout — anxiety attacks, a loss of trust, problems focusing on schoolwork and a fear that the images may someday surface in unexpected ways.
The two young men stood stone-faced throughout, flanked by their lawyers and parents, as they were called pedophiles, “sick and twisted” and perverted.
“I will never understand why they did this,” one victim told Judge Leonard Brown, saying it “destroyed my innocence.”
One young woman told Brown “how excruciating it is to bring these feelings up again and again.” Another choked back tears as she excoriated one of the defendants for expressing “fake empathy” as girls confided with him about their pain, before it became known that he had been part of creating and disseminating the images. Still another said all of her friends transferred schools, and that she “needed trauma therapy to even walk around my neighborhood.”
The defendants declined several opportunities to comment to the judge, who said he had not heard either boy take responsibility or apologize.
“This has been a regrettable, long, torturous process for everyone involved,” said Heidi Freese, defense attorney for one of the defendants. “There were very interesting, underlying legal issues surrounding the charges in this case and those will be decided on a different day in a different case.”
Brown ordered each to perform 60 hours of community service, have no contact with the victims and pay an unspecified amount of restitution. If they don’t have any additional legal problems, Brown said, the case can be expunged after two years.
As he imposed his sentence, Brown said that if they were adults, they probably would be headed for state prison. He said they should “take this opportunity to really examine” themselves.
The resolution of the Pennsylvania case comes days after three teenagers in Tennessee sued Elon Musk’s xAI, claiming the company’s Grok tools morphed their real photos into explicitly sexual images. The high school students are seeking class-action status to represent what the lawsuit says are thousands of people who were similarly victimized as minors.
The scandal in Pennsylvania led to a student protest, criminal charges against the two teenagers and the departure of leaders at the school, which says it has about 600 students K-12, class sizes averaging just 12 kids, and “an endowment in excess of $25 million.”
Nadeem Bezar, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents at least 10 of the victims, said Tuesday he expects to file a claim “against the school and anybody else we think has culpability in these deepfakes being created and disseminated.”
He said he has not yet seen the photos but expects the legal process to determine “exactly when and where and how the school knew, how the boys created these images, what platforms they used to create these images and how they were disseminated.”
As AI has become accessible and powerful, lawmakers across the country have passed laws aimed at barring deepfakes.
President Donald Trump signed the Take it Down Act last year, making it illegal to publish intimate images including deepfakes without consent, and requiring websites and social media sites to remove such material within 48 hours of being notified by a victim.
Forty-six states now have laws addressing deepfakes, with legislation introduced in the remaining four — Alaska, Missouri, New Mexico and Ohio — according to the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
___
Associated Press writers Geoff Mulvihill in Haddonfield, New Jersey, and Holly Ramer in Concord, New Hampshire, contributed.
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Science1 week agoHow a Melting Glacier in Antarctica Could Affect Tens of Millions Around the Globe
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago‘Youth’ Twitter review: Ken Karunaas impresses audiences; Suraj Venjaramoodu adds charm; music wins praise | – The Times of India
-
Science1 week agoI had to man up and get a mammogram
-
Sports6 days agoIOC addresses execution of 19-year-old Iranian wrestler Saleh Mohammadi
-
New Mexico5 days agoClovis shooting leaves one dead, four injured
-
Business1 week agoDisney’s new CEO says his focus is on storytelling and creativity
-
Texas1 week agoHow to buy Houston vs. Texas A&M 2026 March Madness tickets