[EL] The "equal protection" argument in the NC case

[Marty Lederman]

Can someone please explain to me whether the *Bush v. Gore *EPC argument in
the NC case makes any sense at all?

As I understand it, the petitioners (and Judges Wilkinson and Osteen, et
al.) are arguing that because the state Board of Elections changed the
deadline for *receipt *of ballots (not the mailing date) from November 6 to
November 12, that violates the EP rights of voters (such as petitioners
Heath & Whitney) who had already submitted their ballots before the date
(i.e., before this past Monday, 10/12) when that new deadline became
operative, because it "will result in the unequal evaluation of ballots"
submitted before and after *October 12*.

Can that possibly be right? Wouldn't it mean that there'd be an equal
protection question whenever a state makes *any *changes/adjustments after
the first absentee votes are mailed?  What about, e.g., when a decision is
made late at night on Election Day to hold the polls open past midnight
because of long lines?  (And this case isn't even that, because the thing
the *voters *are required to do--mail in their ballots by 11/03--is the
same for everyone--only the *receipt *deadline has changed.)

What am I missing?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201022/92591a57/attachment.html>