[EL] latest Supreme Court ruling on Pennsylvania

[Vladeck, Stephen I]

The order says “additional opinions may follow.” My money is that any such opinion is coming from him.

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Fredric Woocher
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:28 PM
To: Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>; Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] latest Supreme Court ruling on Pennsylvania

I am curious what others’ thinking is as to why Justice Kavanaugh, given his apparent views on the merits of this issue, did not join in Alito’s statement.  Presumably he would have agreed with the denial of the motion to expedite on the ground that it was now too late to do so before the election, so does his refusal to join in the statement suggest that he was not comfortable with its suggestion that there could still be a post-election remedy by invalidating the ballots received after the Election Day deadline?

Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233 x105

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Pursuant to the Governor’s “Stay at Home” Order, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.  Packages requiring signatures will be returned undelivered – do not serve papers by this method.  While our office is closed, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP consents to electronic service in all of its matters.  Please serve by electronic mail to fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com> AND to our Senior Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at loliver at strumwooch.com<mailto:loliver at strumwooch.com>.  We reserve the right to object to any notice or delivery of any kind if not actually received by counsel before all statutory deadlines.



From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:01 PM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] latest Supreme Court ruling on Pennsylvania

Technically, Kavanaugh's footnote full o' dicta was not about state constitutional constraints but about state-court interpretations of state election statutes--but yeah, I think it's a fair wager that he'd say the same about state constitutional constraints.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:54 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
Breaking and Analysis: Supreme Court (with Justice Barrett Not Participating) Refuses Again Emergency Relief in Pennsylvania Ballot Deadline Case; At Least 3 Justices See Constitutional Issues Ahead<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117673>
Posted on October 28, 2020 2:27 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117673> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Supreme Court<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf> (with Justice Barrett not participating) has refused to expedite consideration of the cert. petition in the Pennsylvania voting case. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas issued a separate statement saying that time was too late to review things now, but strongly stating a belief that counting the later ballots would be unconstitutional and that there could well be review after the election of the consideration of these ballots.

The result is not surprising, nor is the lineup. Indeed I predicted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh would not go along with an attempt to relitigate this issue given the very strong reliance arguments<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117382> (coming from the Court’s earlier refusal to grant a stay) and the likely lack of standing <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117413> of the PA GOP which brought this latest request (without the GOP legislature).

The big headline out of this decision is the very strong version of the “independent state legislature” doctrine that appears in the separate Alito statement: “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

To translate this a bit: there are now at least four Justices (if you count Justice Kavanaugh’s views on the merits of this expressed in this week’s Wisconsin case) who believe that when a state Supreme Court applies a state constitution’s protection for voting rights and does so in a way that alters a statute done by the legislature, that act is presumptively illegitimate. That is going to have some very bad ramifications for voting rights going forward and also raises questions about whether states will be able to pass redistricting and other reforms by voter initiative going forward. (Reaching initiatives would require overturning the 2015 Arizona case, but that seems to be well within the realm of future possibilities.)

But what does this mean for a future challenge in the Pennsylvania case and other potential 2020-election related litigation? First, I continue to believe, as I’ve been saying, that given the reliance interests whereby PA voters knew from a few weeks ago that the Supreme Court was not changing the deadline, it’s too late to give a different remedy now. PA voters simply cannot return their ballots in time under the old deadlines and even TODAY the PA website <https://www.votespa.com/Voting-in-PA/Pages/Mail-and-Absentee-Ballot.aspx#return> is telling voters to mail their ballots by election day.
[cid:image001.png at 01D6AD50.1F8754C0]

Without Roberts and Kavanaugh going along, even if Justice Barrett participated in future cases there would not be 5 Justices to throw out those ballots. It is still a theoretical possibility however, especially with ballots now being segregated<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117640> between those arriving by the original statutory deadline and later ballots. Hopefully the election will not be close enough in either PA or the electoral college and the issue becomes moot in this election.

But if the issue of the power of state legislatures against state courts comes up again in the 2020 election cycle, and if Justice Barrett participates, then there could well be a different result. As I explained yesterday in the Washington Post:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/27/brett-kavanaugh-election-opinion/>

This theory would matter if, say, Pennsylvania or North Carolina were having a dispute about a recount in which Biden was behind and the state was running out of time to resolve disputes over the ballots. Both states have Democratic-majority state supreme courts, which could order rules for resolving these disputes consistent with their state constitutions but against the wishes of the states’ Republican-dominated legislatures. The conservatives on the court could embrace Kavanaugh’s version of Rehnquist’s Bush v. Gore theory and say that the state court’s changes to allow a full vote count were impermissible, stopping the count.

And although the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on a similar issue last week out of Pennsylvania, with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated the court could now be 5-4 on this issue, even if Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. does not buy into the theory of broad legislative power endorsed by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

And what to make of Justice Barrett sitting this one out? Did she simply decide there was not enough time to get up to speed on this (a perfectly reasonable conclusion given when she joined the Court!) or is she going to recuse in all 2020-election related litigation? There is no way to know yet.

[This post has been updated.]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117673&title=Breaking%20and%20Analysis%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20(with%20Justice%20Barrett%20Not%20Participating)%20Refuses%20Again%20Emergency%20Relief%20in%20Pennsylvania%20Ballot%20Deadline%20Case%3B%20At%20Least%203%20Justices%20See%20Constitutional%20Issues%20Ahead>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


--
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/
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


--
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-9937



Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201028/95f29d34/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 209581 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201028/95f29d34/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201028/95f29d34/attachment-0001.png>