on friday eveningWhile reporters logged out, the Supreme Court offered clues as to whether it would take up a case that could determine the outcome of the election in the coming weeks. In particular, a hint came from Justice Samuel Alito’s statement. Spoiler: He’s open to it.
Alito’s letter comes as the Supreme Court rejects a lawsuit challenging mail-in voting in Pennsylvania. The Republican National Committee has asked the court to overrule the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to allow voters who forget to place their mail-in ballots in secrecy envelopes to vote on provisional ballots. By refusing to intervene, the Supreme Court allowed some valid Pennsylvania voters to mistakenly return mail-in ballots. Please still vote. The RNC They asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it.
In response, the justices unanimously refused to disenfranchise these voters, leaving the impression that Democrats had won and that voting rights had been further expanded. Technically this means truth. But Alito’s message was muddled by a signal of whether the justices intend to interfere with the election results. Writing.
Normally a judge would not have considered such a case. Because the Supreme Court cannot second-guess a state court’s interpretation of state law. But these are not normal times. Last year, the justices decided that state courts are within their jurisdiction when the state law they are interpreting involves elections. in Moore vs Harper,The Supreme Court has given itself the power to intervene in state election law issues if state court decisions “violate the ordinary scope of judicial review” at the expense of state legislative power. These are vague and untested criteria, and this is the first election under the new precedent. The Supreme Court has now become the Sword of Damocles hanging over every state court decision regarding election procedures.
The Supreme Court has now become the Sword of Damocles hanging over every state court decision regarding election procedures.
In a statement accompanying the court order, Alito said he had agreed not to take up the case with the remaining justices, but that considering the facts of the case, he limited the court’s ability to seek temporary voting ban relief from the RNC. About damaged mail-in ballots. judge Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch also joined Alito’s statement. In the past, factual issues have not prevented the court’s conservatives from taking and deciding cases they want. There are website designers who want to discriminate among their customers. It didn’t exist. soccer coach who claimed to have prayed alone while surrounded by players in the photo; and President Joe Biden’s incident against the student. Create a loan forgiveness plan on behalf of an entity that has nothing to do with the case. The leniency of Robert’s Court is not something that can be taken for granted. The understated appearance was also the same. Due to the Pennsylvania incident Is this a sign that the judges will not participate in the 2024 elections?
Probably not.
Alito has signaled that he and his two colleagues may reopen this particular dispute if presented with other cases, and that others may reopen similar disputes in the coming weeks. He called the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling “controversial” and called the issue “a fairly important issue.” As legal journalist Chris Geidner points out, this language is “a clear signal the trio is sending to the RNC, Donald Trump, and other litigants” and is a “clear set-up.” If Trump or his associates want to file a new lawsuit after the election, at least three judges will likely take up the case. The question is whether the majority is willing to deny people the right to vote, as in this case. A framework for viewing possible answers The comparison is between the 2000 election and the 2020 election.
In 2000, the presidential election in Florida was narrowed down to a few thousand votes. It was unclear who would ultimately emerge victorious once Florida’s votes were tallied, but by mid-December, George W. Bush was leading with 537 votes. The Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide review of certain ballots, so the Bush campaign asked the Supreme Court to intervene. So when the justices stopped the recount in a 5-4 vote, they left the election to Bush. Bush vs. Gore. In effect, they elected the president in a chaotic situation.
On the other hand, in 2020, there were many pleas to federal courts, including the Supreme Court, to throw out ballots and hand the election over to President Donald. erase. The effort to contest the election comes days and even weeks after it became clear that this was not an undecided election, with nearly every swing state declaring Joe Biden the winner. It was a proviso that could not be overcome except by very serious judicial intervention, and his Trump lost the protest. If the Supreme Court had intervened in this situation, the court’s reputation would have been at risk. Why help Trump when it only gave Biden, who would become president, a very good reason to consider court reform?
If tomorrow’s results are as follows: Bush vs. Gore Scenario, especially if you are in a single swing state. Pennsylvania looks like the new Florida, and the court’s right flank could face an opportunity to help Trump’s election. Ultimately, the court took several steps to help Trump retake the White House, most notably halting criminal trials related to the January 6 insurrection. They have also shown a willingness to help with the Republican Party’s recent decision to allow Virginia to remove voters from its voter rolls in a manner that violates federal law. Interfering again would not be an aberration but a continuation.
But if tomorrow’s results are similar to those of 2020 and Harris is the clear winner within a few days, a majority of the justices may not find it wise to stick their necks out for Trump. Famously, Trump doesn’t like to be associated with ‘losers’. The judges probably think the same way.
