County commissioners said Tuesday’s ruling from the state Supreme Court that requires counties to set aside, but not count, undated and improperly dated mail-in and absentee ballots will not create a problem for the election bureau.

The county didn’t count undated mail-in ballots in this year’s primary, and won’t count them in the Nov. 8 election.

“We don’t open them. We don’t canvas them,” Commissioner Kevin Boozel said.

He said he believes voters have become familiar with the rules for voting through the use of mail-in and absentee ballots over the last several years, and he believes that only a small number of undated ballots will be submitted.

“It’s been drilled into people. I expect a minimal number,” Boozel said.

He said 20,499 mail-in and absentee ballots have been requested, 20,383 were issued and 12,867 have been sent in.

Boozel said he believes the ruling will be challenged in court.

The ruling requires counties to segregate and preserve, but not count, ballots received in envelopes that lack accurate handwritten dates.

Leslie Osche, chairwoman of the commissioners, said the county has adhered to the law by not counting undated mail-in ballots, and the court ruling creates consistency for all counties.

“We were following that procedure anyway,” Osche said. “We thought that was part of the law. We’re glad to see the Supreme Court ruled in the matter so there is consistency across the commonwealth. Consistency matters. Otherwise there would have been a lot of postelection challenges.”

She said hopes the ruling prevents lawsuits, but she won’t be surprised if lawsuits are filed.

“We’re not surprised by the Supreme Court decision because that’s the way we interpret the law,” said solicitor Wil White. He said Act 77 requires ballot envelopes to be signed and dated.

He said the decision won’t have a significant impact on county voters. Of the mail-in ballots the county has received so far, 59 were undated, 66 were not placed in the secrecy envelope that is supposed to be put in the mailing envelope, and four were not signed. Ballots containing any of those three “fatal flaws” will not be counted, he said.

“I’m pleased the state Supreme Court upheld the statutory law,” said Commissioner Kim Geyer.

She said she and Osche believe state law requires mail-in ballots to be dated, even though the Department of State has argued that ballots don’t have to be signed.

“The power and authority of elections is designated to the county commissioners and not the Department of State,” Geyer said.

Some counties treat guidance on election matters issued from the department as mandates, but Butler County has followed the law, she said.

Geyer said she and Osche provided affidavits that Butler attorney Tom King used in arguing the case on behalf of the state Republican Party.

“Our stance has always been, if it’s in the statutory law, it’s the law,” Geyer said.

King agreed.

“It's a huge win for the Republican Party and it’s a huge win for Pennsylvania voters,” King said. “For the first time it is clear that in Pennsylvania undated and improperly dated ballots should not be counted and that exactly what the Legislature said should happen.”

He said the affidavits from Osche and Geyer were instrumental in the case.

“Butler County commissioners Osche and Geyer stuck to their guns and followed the law, and refused to count undated and improperly dated ballots. Both signed affidavits that were used in the case to say to the court that Butler County would not count them unless the Supreme Court orders them to,” King said. “They stuck with their convictions and followed what the law prescribed.”

The decision makes a lawsuit filed by state Republican lawmakers that seeks to invalidate Act 77 moot, said state Rep. Tim Bonner, R-8th, who is among the legislators behind the suit. Rep. Aaron Bernstine, R-10th, is also among the plaintiffs.

The suit argues that Act 77 contains a provision that declares the law invalid if any part of it is found to be invalid, Bonner said.

“Our lawsuit is moot because the Supreme Court said dating is required,” Bonner said. “The decision moots our lawsuit. It makes it not necessary because (the Supreme Court) reinstated the part that Commonwealth Court said was invalid.”

He said he is expecting to receive an order from Commonwealth Court declaring the suit as moot.