The real election isn’t happening at the debates or in the headlines. It’s taking place in the battles over election rules and is being defined by secretaries of state, governors, and judges. Those decisions, as we saw in 2020, will play a big role in determining which way swing states actually go. And while most people aren’t following those battles too closely, there have been a mix of good, bad and middling court decisions in swing states.

Take this one out of Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Friday that mail-in ballots without the correct dates on envelopes cannot be counted in elections, a decision which could prove crucial in this year’s presidential election where 19 electoral college votes are up for grabs.

And then there’s the extended battle over non-citizens voting in Arizona.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a mixed ruling on a controversial Arizona voting law.

The Republican National Committee had asked the court to put a pause on a lower court ruling against the 2022 law. And in a 5-4 decision, the high court granted part of that request, allowing Arizona to enforce — for now — a section that requires election officials to reject state voter registration forms that are submitted without an applicant’s proof of U.S. citizenship. That provision will remain in effect as an appeal proceeds.

But the court rejected other aspects of Republicans’ request that could have blocked tens of thousands of currently registered voters from voting in this fall’s presidential election.

The state supreme court now also blocked moves to clear non-citizens from voting in state races.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that nearly 98,000 people whose citizenship documents hadn’t been confirmed can vote in state and local races.

The court’s decision comes after officials uncovered a database error that for two decades mistakenly designated the voters as having access to the full ballot.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, and Stephen Richer, the Republican Maricopa County recorder, had disagreed on what status the voters should hold. Richer asked the high court to weigh in.

And while a lot of people are focused on the presidential election alone, state races determine who runs the state and thus in this case who appoints the judges.