Robust notice-and-cure programs in counties across the commonwealth saved thousands of mail-in ballots in 2024 presidential election
A data analysis by ACLU-PA found that more than 7,000 mail-in voters successfully cured a disqualifying mistake, such as a missing date or signature on the outer envelope, to ensure their mail-in ballot could be counted. More than 2,000 additional mail-ballot voters who made mistakes were able to cast a provisional ballot to preserve their right to vote.
ACLU-PA has conducted an analysis of publicly available mail-ballot data from the Pennsylvania Department of State. Our data team examined the Statewide Mail Ballot Files (SWMBF) for the 2024 presidential election cycle (mid-September through November) to determine how many voters cured their mail-in ballots after making a disqualifying mistake to ensure their votes would be counted in the presidential election.
Curing mail-in ballot mistakes:
- At least 7,100 mail-ballot voters in Pennsylvania successfully cured mistakes involving their mail-in ballot packets, such as forgetting to sign or date the outer envelope, or omitting the secrecy envelope. After being notified by an email from the statewide voter registration system, known as theSURE system, voters in some counties were provided an opportunity to correct the error in person or request a replacement to ensure their vote would be counted in the election, a practice referred to as notice-and-cure.
- These impressive figures are a testament to the hard work of many county election offices to implement notice-and-cure programs (which often include additional notification besides the SURE-system email), the robust education efforts of voting rights groups like the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the diligence of voters who took steps to ensure their mail-in ballots would be counted. A joint coalition of voting rights groups, including ACLU-PA, also successfully advocated for counties to adopt notice-and-cure-policies ahead of the November 2024 election.
- As part of its analysis, ACLU-PA determined the cure rate in each county. These cure rates varied widely across counties – from 20% to 70% – which may be due to the differences in notice-and-cure practices across the commonwealth.
- Delaware, Allegheny, and Dauphin each had mail-ballot cure rates above 65%.
- Philadelphia and Chester had cure rates just over 50%
- The voters who successfully cured their mail-in ballots reflect the diversity of Pennsylvania. They include registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents. They reside in 158 legislative districts across the Commonwealth, and range from first-time voters to those who have been voting for decades.
Voting by provisional ballot to preserve the right to vote
- The ACLU-PA analysis also revealed that an estimated 2,206 voters successfully cast a provisional ballot after learning that they had made a disqualifying error on their mail-in ballot.
- County boards are required to count a provisional ballot cast by a voter whose mail-in ballot has been rejected, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections. This case was brought by ACLU-PA and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) in 2024.
- The data analysis revealed that more than 40 counties entered voters’ mail-ballot errors into the SURE system prior to Election Day. Entering these codes triggers an automatic email notification to a voter that they have made a disqualifying mistake on their mail-in ballot and need to take additional steps to have their vote counted. Early notice is crucial for voters to take steps to preserve their right to vote.
- Following a successful legal challenge brought by the ACLU-PA and PILC, Washington County began entering mail-ballot error codes into the SURE system several weeks prior to Election Day. As a result, 130 voters in Washington County were notified by email that they had made a disqualifying mistake on their mail-in ballots, and 44 of them (34%) successfully cast a provisional ballot to preserve their right to vote.
- Unfortunately, some counties still do not enter mail-ballot mistakes into the SURE system until on or after Election Day, which denies voters the opportunity to preserve their right to vote by casting a provisional ballot.
There is more work to be done
- Despite the significant progress made during this election cycle, both in the overall error rate for mail-in ballots and improved “curing rates” across the commonwealth, there is still work to be done.
- Nearly 18,000 mail ballot voters in the general election made a disqualifying mistake at some point during the election cycle. Approximately 52% of those voters were able to have their ballot counted, by either curing or casting a provisional ballot. But more than 8,500 voters who made errors related to the date, signature, or secrecy envelope did not have a ballot counted in the election.
- In addition, more than 6,800 mail-in ballots were not counted because they arrived after the deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day.
At ACLU-PA, we will continue to advocate for robust notice-and-cure programs and the availability of provisional ballots to ensure that every qualified, eligible Pennsylvania voter is able to have their ballot counted.
- Methodology for curing analysis: ACLU-PA analyzed the point-in-time data in the SWMBF, and tracked ballot statuses changing from a voter error (e.g. “PEND - No Date,” “CANC - No Secrecy Envelope”) to the status used to record a successfully completed ballot packet (e.g. RECORD - Ballot Returned). The statewide total of cured mail-in ballots is likely higher than what is reflected in our analysis because some counties informed us that they contacted voters to cure outside of the SURE system email notifications.
- Methodology for provisional ballot analysis: ACLU-PA submitted a public records request to the Pennsylvania Department of State for voters who cast a provisional ballot in the 2024 presidential election. This data was compared to the SWMBF to identify voters who cast a provisional ballot after being notified of a disqualifying mail-ballot error.
The data analyses were conducted by Ari Shapell, Kate Steiker-Ginzberg, Marian Schneider, and Jack Starobin, and are available upon request.