HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit by six Republican members of Congress seeking to make Pennsylvania election officials institute new checks confirming the eligibility and identity of soldiers, sailors and others who vote from overseas.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner said he agreed with the defendants — Secretary of State Al Schmidt and one of his top deputies — who argued there were no grounds to sue and that the case was launched too late and too close to Election Day.
The Pennsylvania congressmen ''provide no good excuse for waiting until barely a month before the election to bring this lawsuit,'' Conner wrote. More than 25,000 overseas ballots had already been sent out when the case was filed in late September, the judge noted.
The lawsuit was filed by six of the state's eight Republican members of the U.S. House: Reps. Guy Reschenthaler, Dan Meuser, G.T. Thompson, Lloyd Smucker, Mike Kelly and Scott Perry. The other plaintiff is PA Fair Elections, a group led by Heather Honey, an election researcher whose work has fueled right-wing attacks on voting procedures.
Attorney Karen DiSalvo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email that they were disappointed with the judge's ruling and considering options for appeal. DiSalvo said most of the overseas voter absentee ballot requests ''are likely submitted by real people who provide the required identification'' but that the state should ''follow the law and verify the identity and eligibility on the applications they have received.''
During a streamed update on election matters Tuesday, Schmidt said his agency ''is pleased that this frivolous lawsuit was dismissed.''
Conner said the plaintiffs were asking ''to impose new verification procedures the contours of which plaintiffs themselves have been unable to fully flesh out three weeks into this litigation.'' He said an injunction now ''would upend the commonwealth's carefully laid election administration procedures to the detriment of untold thousands of voters.''
During oral arguments on Oct. 18, Conner asked why the plaintiffs had not sued earlier over procedures that have been in place for years. He also pressed their lawyers to show how their clients were directly harmed by the current policies, as required for such claims.