[EL] U.S. Supreme Court denies a stay of Pa. Supreme Court's extension on vote by mail ballots

[Levitt, Justin]

Thanks, Pam.

I'll note that that's four votes for a federal stay of a state supreme court decision, which would have changed the rules 14 days before an election and after 900,000 ballots have already been returned<https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html> in Pennsylvania, without any explanation of why federal law demands such a result.  That's just another example of why I joined Pam and several other members of this list, following Nick's post here<https://takecareblog.com/blog/freeing-purcell-from-the-shadows>, asking SCOTUS to clarify<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A66/157915/20201016105409273_20A64%20-%2020A65%20-%2020A66%20Election%20Law%20Scholars%20Motion%20-%20Brief.pdf> exactly what the heck the rules are in granting or declining (or vacating) last-minute judicial stays.  Because I legitimately don't know how the four Justices voting to grant are conceiving the equities in this case, or how those votes would be consistent with the prior stays this cycle.

Justin

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Pamela S Karlan
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:35 PM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] U.S. Supreme Court denies a stay of Pa. Supreme Court's extension on vote by mail ballots

4-4.  No opinions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101920zr1_ebfi.pdf


Pamela S. Karlan

Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law

Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

Stanford Law School

karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu>

650-725-4851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201019/271c72d1/attachment.html>