[EL] Supreme Court reinstated ban on curbside voting in Alabama: 20A67, Merrill v. People First

[Vladeck, Stephen I]

I’d just add the utter irresponsibility of providing not even a single sentence of explanation as to why the district court order, which even the Eleventh Circuit refused to stay, meets the criteria for a stay from the Court…

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Pamela S Karlan
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 8:48 PM
To: Rick Hasen <hasenr at gmail.com>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Supreme Court reinstated ban on curbside voting in Alabama: 20A67, Merrill v. People First

5-3, with the expected lineup.  A dissent from Justice Sotomayor that ends with a truly heartbreaking quotation:  “ Plaintiff Howard Porter, Jr., a Black man in his seventies with asthma and Parkinson’s Disease, told the District Court: “ ‘[S]o many of my [ancestors] even died to vote. And while I don’t mind dying to vote, I think we’re past that – we’re past that time.’ ” Id., at *11.”

The total indifference of the Court to citizens’ ability to vote — while the Court does its business remotely — is stunning.
Pamela S. Karlan
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law
Co-Director, Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
Stanford Law School
559  Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
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/20201022/4b1e2604/attachment.html>