Supreme Court Allows Mail-In Voting Deadline Extension

Mish

In a 4-4 decision the Supreme Court provided a win for Pennsylvania Democrats.

Battleground Democrat Win

In 4-4 tie the Supreme Court Allows Extension for Mail-In Ballots in Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to disturb a ruling by Pennsylvania’s highest court that extended the battleground state’s deadline for accepting mail-in ballots, a win for Democrats that gives voters more time to navigate postal delays and avoid in-person voting.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal members to leave intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision extending by three days the time for receipt of absentee ballots and allowing those with illegible postmarks to be counted if received by the deadline. 

The court’s four more conservative justices would have granted requests by the state Republican Party and two leading GOP state senators to block the state court’s ruling.

“Huge win for Pennsylvania. Trump’s losing streak continues, this time in SCOTUS,” tweeted state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat. “Now let’s have an election.”

The Battle 

Republicans wanted votes to be received by election day,  a silly requirement given postal delays, potentially on purpose.

The state extended the deadline by three days and last month, by a 4-3 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the three-day extension.

Correct Ruling

The state supreme court invoked its power under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Free and Fair Election Clause to ensure that voters aren’t disenfranchised due to a public-health emergency it likened to a natural disaster.

That seems pretty clear, but the only realistic way Trump can win at the election is by vote theft and voter disenfranchisement. 

Is there any doubt how Judge Amy Coney Barrett would have ruled?

Mish

Comments (24)
No. 1-10
Foodman67
Foodman67

It would be great if at some time in my lifetime a Democrat actually nominated and confirmed a “swing vote”. Same thing was said about Roberts - Barrett could easily be another swing vote. Any Democrat nominee is literally never a swing vote.

ajc1970
ajc1970

Not sure how ACB would have voted.

But I'm sure that when Dems push changes like this, the changes eventually come back to haunt them. Sometimes in the current cycle, sometimes in the next. At some point they'll wish they hadn't done this...

Realist
Realist

Trump has managed to destroy the Republican party and turn it into a shameful bunch of anti- democratic ass kissers like Lyndsey Graham, who care nothing for their country, their principles, the constitution, or truth itself. What a show! It would be funny if it wasn't so sickening. The court appointments are just more of the same. America, how low can you go? Perhaps we will see how low after the election results are contested by Trump and his cult followers. It will be an ”interesting”show to watch. I purchased extra popcorn because I think it could go on for quite a long time.

Augustthegreat
Augustthegreat

tRump's and Republican strategy of vote suppression has been disgusting.

I just dropped my mail-in ballot today. Not that my vote counts that much in a big blue state. But this early voting is my way to fight back tRump's dirty trick.

Rippletum
Rippletum

This just shows how politicized the Supreme Court has become. Why, during a pandemic would you not allow ballots that have been postmarked before the election to not be counted. This shows that the justices are no better than politicians and the only way to fix that is to even out the political hacks on the court. The Supreme court vote in such a politicized fashion is a clear justification for packing the court.

Sechel
Sechel

I'm shocked at how much conservative judges are against voting. I can't see it otherwise. Between limiting drop off boxes, mail in votes and shortened periods it makes one wonder what possible principle is being upheld

Sechel
Sechel

Republicans are playing a numbers game. They look at every activity in terms of the liklihood it results in more Republican or Democratic votes. There's no legal principle involved. To pretend otherwise is crap. This kind of activity blows away an pretense of non-partisanship

Eddie_T
Eddie_T

The conservative courts....which we have now BOTH at the state and federal level.....have become completely politicized.....and for some years now that has favored the Republicans.

No, I have no doubt Barrett would have voted to strike down this PA ruling. None whatsoever.

numike
numike

The United States Constitution provides no right to vote. While seven of the 27 current amendments to the Constitution are concerned with expanding the franchise, US citizens do not have an affirmative right to cast a vote or have their vote counted — as demonstrated in 2000's Bush v. Gore, which cheerfully noted that "[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States".
Legislative attempts have been made to expand voting rights, most notably the 1965 Voting Rights Act, whose central enforcement mechanism was declared obsolete in 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, with predictable consequences.
More recently the 2002 Help America Vote Act established national standards for voting machines and provisional balloting, but has at times been used towards other means.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) has introduced a bill in each of the last several Congresses proposing the following Right to Vote Amendment:
SECTION 1. Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.
SECTION 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.
The bill, like its predecessors, currently languishes in committee.


Global Politics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY