[EL] The Biggest Problem with the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the Wisconsin Voting Case Was Not the Result (Which Was Still Wrong), But the Court’s Sloppiness and Nonchalance About Voting Rights and What That Means for November

Fri Apr 10 21:03:00 PDT 2020

In Ohio, the legislature has not altered the elections code to allow the use of the pinkish-orange bar codes when there is no postmark, but the Secretary of State has interpreted the postmark requirement to be satisfied by those bar codes.  Most mailed ballots that come through without a postmark have a bar code, but not all do.  Some boards of elections, including mine, have bar code readers.  The rest are required to use bar code readers made available by the Secretary of State.  The postmark problem is not a large problem, but it is a problem, especially in a state such as Ohio that requires ballots to be postmarked before election day even if they arrive the day after election day.

Bill Rich
University of Akron School of Law and
Chairman, Summit County Board of Elections

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Charles H Stewart <cstewart at mit.edu>
Date: Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:50 PM
To: "Hamilton, Kevin J. (Perkins Coie)" <KHamilton at perkinscoie.com>, James Bopp Jr <jboppjr at aol.com>, "jha5 at case.edu" <jha5 at case.edu>, "rhasen at law.uci.edu" <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] The Biggest Problem with the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the Wisconsin Voting Case Was Not the Result (Which Was Still Wrong), But the Court’s Sloppiness and Nonchalance About Voting Rights and What That Means for November

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of The University of Akron.
In addition, the orange processing marks on the back of most envelopes contain an encoding of the date the envelope was processed.  As Tammy Patrick points out in her recent Twitter thread, https://twitter.com/aztammyp/status/1248698953626824704<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Faztammyp%2Fstatus%2F1248698953626824704&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574150836&sdata=2CJZbA75ok1YFT6QEg%2FkCMLDtoiueze8ksm07%2FJMy6Y%3D&reserved=0>, many states, but not most, have altered their elections code to formally admit the use of these marks as proof of date-of-mailing. Not all jurisdictions have the equipment to decode these marks but, as someone pointed out to me today, in litigation, there will be equipment.

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Hamilton, Kevin J. (Perkins Coie)
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 5:24 PM
To: James Bopp Jr <jboppjr at aol.com>; jha5 at case.edu; rhasen at law.uci.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The Biggest Problem with the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the Wisconsin Voting Case Was Not the Result (Which Was Still Wrong), But the Court’s Sloppiness and Nonchalance About Voting Rights and What That Means for November

Let me just point out that this “postmark problem” isn’t much of an obstacle.

In states where ballots need only be postmarked by election day in order to be counted (even if received on a later date), canvassing boards address these issues all the time.  Postmarks sometimes are missing, smudged, water damaged, or otherwise illegible.  Canvassing boards review the evidence relating to specific ballots to determine whether they should be counted.  For example, for ballots received the day after the election (the case identified by Rick), that’s typically an easy call:  of course it should be counted as it was obviously mailed on or before election day.  This isn’t much different that the function of a canvassing board to determine (at a later stage of the process) voter intent issues with respect to ambiguously marked ballots.

Kevin

Kevin J. Hamilton | Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
206.359.8888 (main)
206.359.8741 (direct)
206.359.9741 (fax)
khamilton at perkinscoie.com<mailto:khamilton at perkinscoie.com>

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of James Bopp Jr
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 2:05 PM
To: jha5 at case.edu<mailto:jha5 at case.edu>; rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] The Biggest Problem with the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the Wisconsin Voting Case Was Not the Result (Which Was Still Wrong), But the Court’s Sloppiness and Nonchalance About Voting Rights and What That Means for November

If we plan ahead, there is a simple fix for this.  We set the application and mailing deadlines for absentee voting to be far enough ahead of the election, so that the incompetence of the postal service can be reasonably taken into account, and then only count absentee ballots that arrive by election day.
this postmark problem is a problem created by counting ballots that are receive after election day and that is solved by what I suggest.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 4/10/2020 3:52:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time, jha5 at case.edu<mailto:jha5 at case.edu> writes:

I appreciate Rick's thoughtful post.

While I am inclined to think that both SCOWIS and SCOTUS got their respective cases right, one thing that concerns me (and that was apparently not addressed by any of the parties) is that a sizable percentage of absentee ballots do not have postmarks due to no fault of the voter. So although I find the postmark rule implicit in a voting deadline, that only works if there are, in fact, actual postmarks. I'm also surprised no one pointed this out in the briefing, but perhaps that's the sort of oversight that happens when things are on such a compressed schedule. (All the more reason to condemn the legislature for not taking more proactive steps to prevent this problem.)

----
Jonathan H. Adler
Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law
Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44106
ph) 216-368-2535
fax) 216-368-2086
cell) 202-255-3012
jha5 at case.edu<mailto:jha5 at case.edu>
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=183995<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__ssrn.com_author-3D183995%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3Dw1PDSlRKpIXHWjDml8uqRjovjcM2wCzwTrVZWHFzE5Q%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574160790&sdata=IaFW20fpXzSUXLjxVGdMDQiEyaB6F1FoWZSFcDfdQl8%3D&reserved=0>
Blog: http://reason.com/people/jonathan-adler/blogs<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_news_volokh-2Dconspiracy_wp_author_adlerj_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DRmSnt-42PfSZj1IBrfjUKAFGAwmoTG8_MTHqxoqLJ64%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574160790&sdata=nYDLrJH7hej5nIcK%2BTu0SdTz%2Bb6pU82eG2rqf%2BFo9MI%3D&reserved=0>
Web: http://www.jhadler.net<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.jhadler.net%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3Du8ibPZo70yooh6piZ-bucl_APkhHdw2NsCy__OjEBrg%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574170750&sdata=tNKA0mEuuLhC5yVCGci%2BvmvBoG7jr%2Ftf6Jh7zfkFx3k%3D&reserved=0>

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:42 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:

My belated thoughts on the SCOTUS opinion in the Wisconsin case:

The Biggest Problem with the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the Wisconsin Voting Case Was Not the Result (Which Was Still Wrong), But the Court’s Sloppiness and Nonchalance About Voting Rights and What That Means for November<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D110647%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DFjjhBKcrGUlLOObltDi349Kvm4uIJQ-GPNGl-_PbRNs%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574180702&sdata=6f%2Bj1Z0whRGMRxxk7a8O0lnhIXR5GoGwuyAUtHnmsRw%3D&reserved=0>

Posted on April 10, 2020 12:39 pm<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D110647%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DFjjhBKcrGUlLOObltDi349Kvm4uIJQ-GPNGl-_PbRNs%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574180702&sdata=6f%2Bj1Z0whRGMRxxk7a8O0lnhIXR5GoGwuyAUtHnmsRw%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fauthor-3D3%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DbGyMgS8BvowBnDtoc5utJiqyRZA-HWwVyHu_gSuvxZs%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574190659&sdata=qM2lXJp1L8cSN8noiC98adY5nlshUDp0r7Cwjuit9B8%3D&reserved=0>

There has been a ton of commentary on the Supreme Court’s split decision<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_19pdf_19a1016-5Fo759.pdf%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DH8QhADXyd1goqGOUwlkLvhW_PK19s5ms2QGZj1RW5-A%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574190659&sdata=mz6CD2NJxRj2s83XDY5%2FazuMfVZ0%2Fa5029MXeLZNX7M%3D&reserved=0> in the Wisconsin voting case, which reversed a district court order allowing absentee ballots received by April 13 whether or not they were postmarked by the April 7 election date to count toward the election, and I hesitate to add to it. But I think there’s something really important to be said not about what the Court decided but about how it decided it.

The district court issued its order because, thanks to the coronavirus pandemic, well over 1 million Wisconsin voters had requested absentee ballots (more than 4 times the usual number of requests). This led to a backlog of requests and problems with postal service handling of ballots, meaning many voters (we are still trying to figure out how many, but in the thousands) did not received their ballots by April 7 in order to vote them and get them postmarked in time.

It is very easy to criticize the Court’s 5-4 decision (with all the Republican-appointed Justices siding with Republicans to not allow the late-arriving ballots to count, and all the Democratic-appointed Justices dissenting and siding with Democrats) as the product of simple partisan infighting. At best, the decision could charitably be explained, as Rick Pildes told NYT’s Adam Liptak<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.nytimes.com_2020_04_09_opinion_wisconsin-2Dprimary-2Dsupreme-2Dcourt.html%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DrvjtU5aryjWG7b7fU4uTICfuo6lCqFPRO3lDYAZOYwE%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574200616&sdata=yhU0K4hpDYLCy7TZ4zh5I6N3VQrzUPA4jYbBmlummDQ%3D&reserved=0>, as reflecting the Justices’ ideological rather than partisan commitments: ““I’d say ‘liberal’ judges are more comfortable with federal courts crafting what they see as pragmatic, ad hoc responses to extraordinary election circumstances,” he said, “while ‘conservative’ judges believe that federal courts should retain as much of the pre-existing rule structure — such as that absentee ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day — as possible.”

I think the Court reached the wrong decision, but the matter is closer than some people say. While the district court didn’t frame it this way, it essentially extended the absentee voting period for a few additional days, allowing anyone who received a ballot to vote after the April 7 election day so long as the ballot was received before April 13.

There is much to be said for courts sticking to the rules as written before the election, because later decisions by courts can help (and be seen as helping) one side or another; and clear election rules should be followed barring extraordinary circumstances. The main Court error in its decision, in my view, was that the Court failed to recognize<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.nytimes.com_2020_04_09_opinion_wisconsin-2Dprimary-2Dsupreme-2Dcourt.html%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DrvjtU5aryjWG7b7fU4uTICfuo6lCqFPRO3lDYAZOYwE%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574200616&sdata=yhU0K4hpDYLCy7TZ4zh5I6N3VQrzUPA4jYbBmlummDQ%3D&reserved=0> the truly extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic’s effect on the public health, and the failure of political actors in Wisconsin (primarily the Republican legislature, but also the Democratic governor who inexplicably dragged his feet until at the very last minute seeking to postpone the election) to act. This put many voters who did not receive absentee ballots in the horrible position of having to choose serious health risks or become disenfranchised. (Already Wisconsin health investigators are looking at <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.jsonline.com_story_news_politics_elections_2020_04_09_coronavirus-2Dwisconsin-2Dstate-2Dtracking-2Dwhether-2Dcases-2Dtied-2Dvoting_5126212002_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DYyHKRhnlSmkjv7X0UhY6iEQmpxPXZQCEAQepOcyzy8o%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574210573&sdata=vTzpcQaYU0f3HO6EqVOsHFW807ug0rlpHgEbFHvfuoM%3D&reserved=0> whether people may have contracted the virus while voting.) Application of the Purcell Principle should<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__papers.ssrn.com_sol3_papers.cfm-3Fabstract-5Fid-3D2545676%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DunRjlcwjNti2mccf1zcKxyyADddcmSTBRPxO_YtIPLc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574210573&sdata=LRBnsVPN4grWKA2h1%2FwZMZcxqNE9c97gH5vYUns7%2Feg%3D&reserved=0> be suspended when an emergency not of the parties’ own making causes a court to issue a last minute election order.

But the Court’s decision is far from the worst of what the Court did; much of the disenfranchisement in Wisconsin is at the foot of Wisconsin political actors (and the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which also along party lines split over the Governor’s last minute attempt to try to delay the election). Far worse than its decision was its opinion.

To begin with, the opinion (which Court insiders believe was drafted by Justice Kavanaugh, who got the original petition as the Circuit Justice for the 7th Circuit) was exceedingly sloppy. The Court spends all this time noting that the plaintiffs never requested the relief of the absentee ballot return extension in their original filing. But as Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, the plaintiffs orally made the request at the preliminary injunction hearing, which certainly seems in order given the rapidly changing and deteriorating conditions. Linda Greenhouse notes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.nytimes.com_2020_04_09_opinion_wisconsin-2Dprimary-2Dsupreme-2Dcourt.html%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DrvjtU5aryjWG7b7fU4uTICfuo6lCqFPRO3lDYAZOYwE%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574220533&sdata=e6JK2ypntzL6jIXOnWepEk2bCoj1tK49t6UXoMZRIFc%3D&reserved=0> the oddity of the Court hung up on a procedural point that turned out to be completely wrong.

The Court was also sloppy in how it wrote its relief, requiring that ballots be postmarked by April 7. Now we know of at least 682 ballots in Madison alone that arrived by April 8 (meaning they were no doubt mailed by April 7) but without a postmark. Lots of mail does not get a postmark. These voters are being disenfranchised<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D110638%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DVnrioiJJ9Slj79OpHWWAggebJXI22WX00tt89Ej9C5I%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574220533&sdata=TN0TOqMF5zawugj5060yQTl9L6hOQ64JjdvBlPO0rZ8%3D&reserved=0> for no good reason. The Court as the very least should have accepted any ballots arriving by mail on April 8.

Beyond the sloppiness, and most troubling, is the cavalier nature of the Supreme Court’s opinion. It is one that ignores the pandemic and treats this as ordinary litigation in an ordinary time. The message it sends is that the Court cares little about the voting rights of people in the state, especially African-American voters in Milwaukee<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__slate.com_news-2Dand-2Dpolitics_2020_04_never-2Dforget-2Dwisconsin.html%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3D7HfrtBr91YVvxCbKlmp_n6FnYXFp6P1RM56UDwrCJJM%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574230485&sdata=NTaAGiRQmOhJg3ky8J7iw1q9he6EWXgeTNFQ8sZvmo8%3D&reserved=0> who have been facing a horrible risk related to the virus. In this extraordinary time of a pandemic, when a Wisconsin Republican legislative leader–in full protective gear–lied<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D110500%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3D-ikLi3mlDtn-k7KjDVDZDa07RuVujzy6UFBp_245kwk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574230485&sdata=OvEYKwZ6RUgA%2B2Rvtv2nueH1iacjMXV1ljKYo1zt%2BU0%3D&reserved=0> about the safety of casting a ballot and the ability to cast an absentee ballot at the last minute), the Supreme Court chose to vote remotely<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.theatlantic.com_ideas_archive_2020_04_supreme-2Dcourts-2Dhypocrisy-2Dgoing-2Dget-2Damericans-2Dkilled_609598_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DSGJCPPKhRVgyz29lM2xk2pOoSZ7cWvPkgOTiQGaWWPs%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574230485&sdata=%2FeZ1zi4PDSD3FVAxpJhu%2FsHZRbcBZ7O1CmKsW%2B3PwLU%3D&reserved=0> for safety reasons while denying some Wisconsin voters a chance to to the same.

Not only does the Court’s opinion show a nonchalance about the importance of voting rights in the most dire circumstances. It shows that the Court majority did not look for a way to build a bridge for a unanimous compromise opinion. The signal it sends is that we are going to have partisan warfare at the Court for the upcoming election, which is already shaping up to be one conducted under conditions of deep polarization and a pandemic. And the Court majority is not going to side with voters.

Although I usually criticize the Court for not giving reasons for most of its its “shadow docket” emergency election decisions, in this case the Court should have just issued its order with no explanation.

Because what the Court provided by way of reasoning has made things much, much worse.

[Share]<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.addtoany.com_share-23url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Felectionlawblog.org-252F-253Fp-253D110647-26title-3DThe-2520Biggest-2520Problem-2520with-2520the-2520Supreme-2520Court-25E2-2580-2599s-2520Opinion-2520in-2520the-2520Wisconsin-2520Voting-2520Case-2520Was-2520Not-2520the-2520Result-2520-28Which-2520Was-2520Still-2520Wrong-29-252C-2520But-2520the-2520Court-25E2-2580-2599s-2520Sloppiness-2520and-2520Nonchalance-2520About-2520Voting-2520Rights-2520and-2520What-2520That-2520Means-2520for-2520November%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DXrnOzTli5C7mpIaCB9u6tC7IZHlv_ajTGu3vf8LMzjc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574240440&sdata=eWGaBU2jIQFRvGMLth80Q6%2BTCXk3rjXOGOsLSnqAcRU%3D&reserved=0>

Posted in Supreme Court<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D29%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DgwVYusYyrBG-LykD3I7LmiDol9zuJmxhf4GhkwfQfWc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574240440&sdata=Z1N2T%2Ff0eYTWolowoSbthRiL0mbGvF1hKGH9PyW2xF4%3D&reserved=0>, The Voting Wars<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D60%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DQ7VDuf8XylKAvibjnsnUJ-AI6SCabKMMIx3AU-FMQkM%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574250401&sdata=NGnfenT9IM%2B3dkVZwzNm9%2FrVbv6CGAwfHxhlzbfjH2o%3D&reserved=0>

--

Rick Hasen

Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science

UC Irvine School of Law

401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

949.824.3072 - office

rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DT3SPX2KftsN_uQfCJU5rAOyRh02tkGLsdJ-thKm_tac%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574250401&sdata=gNIUCUf9fJAtXXbyd%2Fvp%2FCKtxutKQQ1fvVttSv80VFI%3D&reserved=0>

http://electionlawblog.org<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__electionlawblog.org_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DQxNwUqf0wjMsn6C_y1mLqAmDtyubGUjxYJ_cR7Q-V0I%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574260351&sdata=BlTZiGZL7yL2Rdt0wnltSJ3qDFCQSGaXQKLt%2FmuQHmw%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DdPyS4LK2bEDK3VbomnXmdC9Rwxj09Q79PE9vYzCZh0c%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574270308&sdata=wedhWTxp%2FTutTU2iSXQlZWIO8UXmmDH0jokD9XZ51OE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3D_TQDf0X_YEH1a8hvJGmG35A5CmC05XfM73WVzfEAeuQ%26m%3D4nh2xE_z3tipc8oyYKUqYn0Yus72FAJXPx7GfF0Unt8%26s%3DdPyS4LK2bEDK3VbomnXmdC9Rwxj09Q79PE9vYzCZh0c%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Crich%40uakron.edu%7C765b0c9dd6854ca2f83d08d7dda1a106%7Ce8575dedd7f94ecea4aa0b32991aeedd%7C0%7C0%7C637221558574270308&sdata=wedhWTxp%2FTutTU2iSXQlZWIO8UXmmDH0jokD9XZ51OE%3D&reserved=0>

________________________________

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200411/a8c43cb8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2022 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200411/a8c43cb8/attachment.png>