[EL] SCOTUS order ---ANALYSIS

Mon Apr 6 18:45:08 PDT 2020

Relevant parties weren’t before the court, judge didn’t have the power to do that anyway, first amendment issues, etc.

Clear issues with election administration here and not sure why you wouldn’t postpone the primary, but that doesn’t mean you allow a free-for-all.

Ilya Shapiro
Director
Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Mass. Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
(o) 202-218-4600
(c) 202-577-1134
Twitter: @ishapiro

http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html

On Apr 6, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Jon Sherman <jsherman at fairelectionscenter.org> wrote:

Wisconsin doesn’t have a postmark requirement. Why doesn’t enjoining unofficial reporting through April 13th prevent gamesmanship and preserve the rule of law?

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:54 PM Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:
I for one agreed with all of this but the last sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court today preserved voting rights and the rule of law. (I have no views on what the Wisconsin Supreme Court did, not knowing anything about the state laws at issue.)

Ilya Shapiro
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1000+Mass.+Ave.+NW+%0D%0A+Washington,+DC+20001?entry=gmail&source=g>
Director
Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Mass. Ave. NW<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1000+Mass.+Ave.+NW+%0D%0A+Washington,+DC+20001?entry=gmail&source=g>
Washington, DC 20001<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1000+Mass.+Ave.+NW+%0D%0A+Washington,+DC+20001?entry=gmail&source=g>
(o) 202-218-4600
(c) 202-577-1134
Twitter: @ishapiro

http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html<http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html>

On Apr 6, 2020, at 7:46 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:

Breaking: Supreme Court on 5-4 Vote Reverses District Court on Late-Arriving Absentee Ballots in Wisconsin Race. This is a Bad Sign for November in a Number of Ways.<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110447>
Posted on April 6, 2020 4:16 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110447> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can read the opinion and dissent here<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/19A1016.pdf>.

In some ways, it is unsurprising that the Court divided 5-4 (conservative/Republican Justices against liberal/Democratic Justices) on a question whether the emergency created by COVID-19 and the dangers of in-person voting justified a district court order to extend the receipt of absentee ballots from April 7 to April 13 (only ballots postmarked by April 7 will be counted).

On the one hand, conservatives are wary of federal courts rewriting election rules at the last minute (the Purcell principle<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676> idea, which gets heavy play here). On the other hand, the liberals point out that because of the backlog of absentee ballot requests, there are something like 10,000 voters who will not get an absentee ballot by April 7 in time to send it back. They see this as disenfranchisement because it is too dangerous for voters to go to the polls under the conditions of the pandemic. As Justice Ginsburg wrote in her dissent of these voters: “Either they will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others’ safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own. “

So this looks like a typical divide between conservatives who favor strict rules even when they risk disenfranchisement of voters versus liberals who are willing to modify election rules to protect voting rights. We’ve seen this play out many times in Supreme Court voting rights cases as in the past.

On the other hand, it is a very bad sign for November that the Court could not come together and find some form of compromise here in the midst of a global pandemic unlike anything we have seen in our lifetimes. Like the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court divided along partisan and ideological lines. Already in 2018, before COVID, the amount of election-related litigation had hit a record (data in my book, Election Meltdown). The year 2020 was likely to set a new record. But with election changes proliferating and a fight over expanded absentee balloting necessary to combat the COVID crisis, the amount of litigation is going to skyrocket. And it does not look like the courts are going to be able to do any better than the politicians in finding common ground on election principles.

This means that there is a lot of work to do now to try to avoid election meltdown. More on that in coming weeks. But the message from today is: don’t expect the courts to protect voting rights in 2020.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110447&title=Breaking%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20on%205-4%20Vote%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20on%20Late-Arriving%20Absentee%20Ballots%20in%20Wisconsin%20Race.%20This%20is%20a%20Bad%20Sign%20for%20November%20in%20a%20Number%20of%20Ways.>
<image001.png>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Date: Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:20 PM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: [EL] SCOTUS order (analysis to come)

https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/19A1016.pdf<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/19A1016.pdf>

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697?entry=gmail&source=g>
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000<https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697?entry=gmail&source=g>
Irvine, CA 92697<https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697?entry=gmail&source=g>-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen>
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
--
Jon Sherman
Senior Counsel
Fair Elections Center
1825 K Street NW, Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 248-5346
jsherman at fairelectionscenter.org<mailto:jsherman at fairelectionscenter.org>
www.fairelectionscenter.org<http://www.fairelectionscenter.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200407/06bf979b/attachment.html>