“The Court’s decision on the narrow question before the Court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the broader question of whether to hold the election, or whether other reforms or modifications in election procedures in light of COVID–19 are appropriate. That point cannot be stressed enough,” the majority opinion said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court’s most liberal members, said in the dissent, joined by all Democrat-appointed justices, that she wasn’t doubting “the good faith” of her colleagues. But she said the majority’s opinion was bizarrely blinkered to the sweeping disruption the virus has caused in America.
“The Court’s suggestion that the current situation is not ‘substantially different’ from ‘an ordinary election’ boggles the mind,” she wrote.
The simple fact that the majority wrote to explain its decision was a departure from usual practice and evinced a certain defensiveness about how its decision would be interpreted. While justices often explain their dissents from emergency stay rulings like the one Monday, the court’s majority rarely explains its rationale.
The GOP-appointed majority dismissed the Democratic appointees’ assessment in unusually blunt language, calling it „quite wrong“ on the facts and overwrought in tone. „The dissent’s rhetoric is entirely misplaced,“ the majority wrote.
The five-justice majority also seemed eager to paint its order as echoing earlier rulings where the court did not appear to divide as sharply along ideological lines. The new ruling cited a decision from 2014 that halted implementation of a Republican-backed voter ID law in Wisconsin just weeks before that year’s general election. Only three of the five GOP-appointed justices publicly dissented from that decision.
Conservative commentator Ed Whelan echoed the majority’s analysis, playing down the significance of the decision and praising the justices for attempting to avoid having the federal courts impose further disruption on the electoral process.
“I’m not disputing that there is a messy situation in Wisconsin. Issue is proper judicial role in addressing that mess. Established principle against lower courts making late changes to election rules reasonably governs,” Whelan wrote on Twitter.
Whelan also suggested that it was the liberal justices who were abandoning the court’s usual preference to leave election laws to local officials in the lead-up to voting day.
“Seems to me that if the political polarities were flipped—i.e., a close-to-election-day order by a district court fundamentally changing the rules in favor of Republican plaintiffs—the ruling to reverse would be 9-0. Is there evidence to the contrary?” he asked.
Some Democratic lawyers saw one silver lining in the high court’s decision. Marc Elias, who frequently represents national and state Democratic Party committees and did so in the dispute the justices ruled on Monday, made clear he is no fan of their ruling.
“This is a national disgrace. This may well cost lives,” Elias wrote on Twitter.
However, the Perkins Coie partner noted that the Supreme Court appeared to back the trial judge’s order setting aside a Wisconsin state-law requirement that ballots be received by election day.
“Beyond tomorrow’s election—for which this decision is terrible—this is the key holding,” Elias wrote. “The US Supreme Court, perhapsw [sic] unintentionally, just endorsed a post marked by Election Day standard (rather than received by). This will enfranchise thousands of voters in November.”
Whether the Supreme Court or other courts will insist on that flexibility for future elections or even those disrupted by the current pandemic remains unclear. Elias listed at least seven states where ballots are typically required to be received by election officials on or before Election Day: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.
Source: politico.com
See more here: news365.stream
