Established Fact
On September 17, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that county boards could accept hand-delivered mail-in ballots at locations other than official offices — including drop boxes — a provision absent from Act 77 as enacted by the Republican-controlled Legislature. This judicial modification, combined with CTCL’s private funding of drop box infrastructure concentrated in Democratic-plurality jurisdictions, created a system in which both public law and private money jointly engineered asymmetric ballot return capacity. Articles of impeachment were subsequently filed against Justice David Wecht, citing among other grounds his failure to disclose that petitioners in the Boockvar case had contributed nearly $225,000 to his 2020 Supreme Court campaign.
Citations
Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, No. 133 MM 2020, 2020 WL 5554644 (Pa. Sept. 17, 2020). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction and held that the Election Code, read in light of Act 77’s legislative intent, “permit[s] county boards of election to accept hand-delivered mail-in ballots at locations other than their office addresses including drop-boxes.” Full opinion and order available via ACLU of Pennsylvania: https://www.aclu.org/cases/pennsylvania-democratic-party-v-boockvar ; Justia summary: https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2020/133-mm-2020-1.html
Act 77 of 2019, signed October 31, 2019, provided that mail-in ballots must be returned “by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, or deliver[ed] in person to said county board of election.” The statute made no mention of drop boxes — neither authorizing nor prohibiting them. The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania General Assembly subsequently passed legislation to close this gap. Pennsylvania Act 77 of 2019 overview: https://www.aclupa.org/app/uploads/2020/01/pa_election_reform_-_act_77_outline_of_provisions.pdf ; Berks County summary of Act 77: https://www.berkspa.gov/departments/election-services/act-77
The Federalist Society’s case tracker on PA Democratic Party v. Boockvar summarizes: “the state supreme court determined that the county board of elections may accept mail-in ballots outside of their offices, including in unmanned drop-boxes.” Chief Justice Saylor dissented as to the drop box holding and the ballot deadline extension. Federalist Society State Court Docket Watch: https://fedsoc.org/scdw/PADemvBoockvar2020
Pennsylvania Senate Republicans, press release (April 13, 2022): “Drop boxes were permitted by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in 2020, despite the fact that they were never authorized or intended by the General Assembly through the legislative process.” Sen. Cris Dush: “The General Assembly never voted to allow drop boxes in Act 77 or elsewhere, and the utter lack of reliable security surrounding these drop boxes is appalling and unacceptable.” The Senate subsequently passed SB 1200, requiring all non-mailed ballots be returned only to the County Board of Elections office, effectively eliminating drop boxes. PA Senate Republicans official press release: https://www.pasenategop.com/news/senate-votes-to-ban-unsecured-ballot-drop-boxes-and-private-funding-of-election-operations/ ; Sen. Judy Ward’s statement: https://senatorjudyward.com/2022/04/13/senate-votes-to-ban-unsecured-ballot-drop-boxes-and-private-funding-of-election-operations/
The same legislative session produced SB 982, banning acceptance of private funding by any state employee or county for election administration — a direct response to CTCL’s 2020 grant program. Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward: “Pennsylvania’s drop boxes have no statutory parameters as they were established by our Commonwealth’s Supreme Court without legislative approval.” Both bills passed the Senate and were transmitted to the House. PA Senate Republicans press release: https://www.pasenategop.com/news/senate-votes-to-ban-unsecured-ballot-drop-boxes-and-private-funding-of-election-operations/
Pennsylvania House Resolution 1044, introduced October 6, 2020, called for the impeachment of Justice David N. Wecht for misbehavior in office — the first set of articles arising in the immediate aftermath of the Boockvar ruling. Referred to the Judiciary Committee; never voted on by the full House. HR 1044 information page: https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2019/hr1044 . The Pennsylvania Bar Association responded: “Although House Resolution 1044 has been introduced in the General Assembly, we believe that our legislators will keep the public trust in our system of government, the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law.” PBA statement (Oct. 7, 2020): https://www.pabar.org/site/News-and-Publications/News/News-Releases/2020/Oct/Impeachment-of-PA-Supreme-Court-Justice-Wecht
A second set of articles, HR 58, was filed on February 24, 2021 by Rep. Frank Ryan and co-sponsors. Article VI specifically cited Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, No. 133 MM 2020 (Pa. Sept. 17, 2020), on the ground that Wecht failed to disclose that petitioners in that case had contributed $224,910.24 — nearly 8 percent of his $3.1 million 2015 campaign total — before he voted with the majority. Article VII cited the cumulative pattern of rulings as undermining judicial integrity. HR 58 was referred to the Judiciary Committee on February 24, 2021; it was not voted on by the full House. HR 58 full text: https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/text/HTM/2021/0/HR0058/PN0617 ; Rep. Ryan’s contemporaneous statement: https://www.patownhall.com/ryan-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-justice-david-wecht/