Technology

5 Supreme Court docket rulings that sign what to anticipate subsequent

5-supreme-court-docket-rulings-that-sign-what-to-anticipate-subsequent

Trump's tweet goes to the heart of the political and legal case he's been making all year. But there are problems with his reasoning: it contradicts every election in American history, has no legal basis, and is part of his politicized disinformation campaign about electoral security, which is regularly contradicted by the federal government's top electoral security officials.

There is nothing shameful to imagine. The counting of ballot papers after election day takes place literally at every national election. It has never been the case that every vote is counted on election night. The "results" you typically hear that night are predictions from the news media with no legal weight. Officially certified results come days or weeks later as all ballots are counted.

It's about the counting of ballot papers, which is up for the Supreme Court. Some states have tried to address the issues by increasing the time it takes to count valid ballots to deal with a worsening pandemic, record-breaking mail-in votes, and a U.S. postal service run under a recently appointed Trump Dispenser has stalled.

Democrats and judicial liberals have backed expanded electoral rules in hopes of adapting to this unprecedented electoral challenge. Republicans and judicial conservatives have now generally spoken out against rule changes enacted by state legislatures, even if pushed by state electoral officials.

The previous decisions

This is how the Supreme Court ruled in the last cases that define the 2020 election.

Pennsylvania, October 20: The Republicans lost a swing state match last week. The state's Supreme Court ruled that postal ballot papers could be received three days after polling day after the postal service stated that delivery delays could endanger the disenfranchisement of the state. A key issue here is who made the decision: when extensions come from states, they are usually successful in the Supreme Court; If they come from the federal government, they fail.

Alabama, October 22: A nationwide ban on roadside voting, in which disabled people drive to a polling station and cast their ballots, was allowed to remain in place. The ban originally came from the Alabama Secretary of State, who was arguing with a federal court over whether the ban violated the Disability Act. The state prevailed here against the differences of opinion of the Liberals of the Supreme Court.

Wisconsin, October 26th: As we reported recently, the Supreme Court refused to extend the deadline for the mail-in vote count in Wisconsin, a victory for the Republicans who brought the legal challenge with it. That particular extension order originally came from a federal judge in September, a key point that the court's Conservatives all agreed: federal courts shouldn't hold state micromanagement elections.

Pennsylvania, October 28: The US Supreme Court denied a Republican motion to expedite a review of voting deadlines for inboxes in Pennsylvania – the case it ruled last week. But the problem is not definitively resolved: Conservative judges left the door open to the opportunity to re-examine the case after the election, and Pennsylvania officials segregate post-election ballots in the event of such a dispute. If the Pennsylvania vote is close, you can bet it will raise its head again.

North Carolina, October 29th: A few days later, the Democrats won a similar case in a 5-3 decision. Chief Justice Roberts joined the more liberal judges to allow North Carolina to receive and count votes for up to nine days after election day. This extension from three to nine days was carried out by the electoral board of the state. For Roberts, that ultimately made all the difference.

The near future

"I think this will end up in the Supreme Court," Trump predicted last month.

Amy Coney Barrett didn't participate in any of the five major voting decisions, but she is sure to be involved in the future and will certainly play a role in any post-election litigation. President Trump has made it clear that this is where the fight will take place after the polls are completed.

0 Comments
Share

Steven Gregory