In Re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 General Election

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, where a statute requires service by mail or by delivery in person, deliveiy by a third person is invalid
• holding that the delivery of absentee ballots by third persons rendered them invalid, notwithstanding indications from the Allegheny County Board of Elections that the practice was permitted
• holding Election Code’s in-person ballot delivery requirement was mandatory and that votes delivered by third persons must not be counted
• holding that “[n]o [] ‘recognized exception’ exists that would permit a court to employ a jurisprudential doctrine to defeat a substantive provision of the Election Code[]” and, therefore, that reliance on incorrect information from a board of elections will not overcome such provision
• stating that while “some contexts may leave the precise meaning of the word ‘shall’ in doubt, . . . . this Court has repeatedly recognized the unambiguous meaning of the word in most contexts” (citations omitted)
• statutory requirement that ballot be submitted by elector and not third-party is mandatory safeguard against fraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).