Court will not block an extension of the North Carolina Mail-In Poll Deadline – SCOTUSblog


557
557 points

Posted on Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:04 pm by Amy Howe

On Wednesday evening, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump campaign and North Carolina Republicans’ request to intervene in a dispute over a deadline for mailed polls in North Carolina. With three opposing judges, the court Leave in place Extending the deadline for mailing ballots to nine days after the election. Just like you did on the Ruling a few hours ago in a similar case in PennsylvaniaJudge Amy Connie Barrett did not participate in the court’s decision.

Wednesday’s ruling came in a dispute that began when the North Carolina Alliance of Retired Americans and a group of voters filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the state’s ruling that ballot papers must be mailed to November 6, three days after Election Day. . Competitors have argued that the deadline should be extended in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The state court eventually approved a consent agreement between the two contenders and the state election board that extended the deadline for mailed voting by six days, until November 12.

Two Republican lawmakers – Timothy Moore, the Republican president of the state House of Representatives, and Philip Berger, the state’s highest Republican in the Senate – went to federal court in North Carolina to stop the consent agreement from going into effect, as did the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. But the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected their request on October 20, by a vote of 12-3, with Opposition Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson urging “to take this case to the Supreme Court immediately.”

Moore, Berger, Trump Campaign and the FNC They came to the Supreme Court two days later. They argued that judges should intervene because extending the deadline for absentee balloting violates two different provisions of the constitution: the election clause, by removing the responsibility of the state legislature for setting the date, place, and manner of federal elections; And the requirement of equal protection, by applying different rules depending on when the voters cast their vote. They told the judges that election officials “misrepresented North Carolina voters and planted great confusion with” the consent agreement and “ever-changing directives.” The Trump campaign and the FNC have also asked the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the merits of the case “as soon as possible.”

The state and the National Agricultural Research Authority of Asia (NCARA) urged the judges to stay out of the fight. They argued that the campaigner, the party’s National Council, and lawmakers had no legal right, known as a “position,” to contest the extension of the deadline. They concluded that the merits of their claims were in any case based on “anomalous interpretations of long-term and long-term constitutional dictates.” They warned that the Supreme Court order stopping the extension of the deadline would “risk the confusion and potential denial of the voting right that this court has warned of by imposing a new deadline for receiving absentee ballots six days before they are announced.”

In a pair of summary orders Wednesday night, judges rejected the requests without explanation, leaving the extended deadline in effect. Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch indicated that they would have stopped extending the deadline. In opposition of three and a half pages, Gorsuch stressed that the state legislature has already taken measures to respond to COVID-19, including by reducing the number of witnesses required for absentee voting and allowing voters to request absentee ballots online. . But the legislature kept the deadline for receiving the ballot papers by mail, Gorsuch noted, and demanded that they be stamped by mail by Election Day and received no more than three days after that. Just as the Supreme Court recently rejected a “similar effort” in Wisconsin to “rewrite the state legislature election deadlines,” Gorsuch claimed, judges should do the same here. In fact, he suggested, “This case may be even more egregious, given that state court and Election Board” work together to bypass a carefully tailored legislative response to COVID. “

Gorsuch agreed with Wilkinson that actions such as “undermining the textual obligation in the election clause of responsibility for enacting election laws for federal and state legislators” and “detrimental to faith in the constitution written as law.” Moreover, he added, “last-minute changes by largely unaccountable bodies” could “create confusion, risk altering election results, and in the process threaten voters’ confidence in the results. ”

A statement from the court’s information office indicated that, as in the Pennsylvania case, Barrett, who had joined the court just a day earlier, had not participated in the court’s decision on the Republican request because she had not had the opportunity to fully review. The deposits in the case. The judges have yet to act on a third pending request for emergency relief: President Donald Trump’s plea to prevent a grand jury summoning in New York He sought to obtain his financial records from his longtime accountant, who had been kept fully informed for nine days.

This article was Originally published in Howe on the Court.

Published in Hakim v. CircostaAnd the Moore vs. surroundedAnd the FeaturedAnd the Electoral litigationAnd the Emergency calls and applications

Recommended quote:
Amy Howe
The court will not block an extension of the North Carolina mail-order ballot deadlineAnd the
Scotus Blog (October 28, 2020, 9:04 pm), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/court-wont-block-extended-deadline-for-north-carolina-mail-in-ballots/


Like it? Share with your friends!

557
557 points
admin

0 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *