facebook linkedin twitter

Supreme Court Denies Democrats’ Appeal Over Wisconsin’s Deadline for Mail Ballots

October 27, 2020by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to extend the Election Day deadline for mail ballots in Wisconsin, rejecting appeals from Democrats who said the Postal Service may not be able handle the flood of election mail by Nov. 3.

The justices by a 5-3 vote left in place a ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court in Chicago that blocked relaxing the deadline in response to the pandemic.

The court’s five Republican appointees were in the majority, while the three Democratic appointees — Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — said they would have granted the appeal.

The court’s decision was announced as the Senate voted to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Wisconsin election officials predict that as many as 2 million of its voters may cast their ballots by mail, and the court decisions require those ballots to arrive at a county election office by Nov. 3 if they are to be counted.

Democrats and voting rights advocates had argued that mail ballots that arrived up to six days after Nov. 3 should be counted if they were postmarked by Election Day. They won a ruling from a federal district judge in Madison, but lost by a 2-1 vote in the 7th Circuit.

The outcome stands in contrast to the court’s ruling in a similar dispute from Pennsylvania. On a tie vote, the justices let stand a ruling from Pennsylvania’s high court that extended the deadline for three days for ballots that were mailed by Election Day.

However, in the Wisconsin case, the justices were being asked to overturn a lower court ruling that rejected a change in the state’s deadline. And to prevail, the Democrats needed the votes of at least five justices.

In a concurring opinion, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said the federal judges should not have intervened in the first place.

“The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules,” Gorsuch wrote in Democratic National Committee vs. Wisconsin State Legislature.

Kagan wrote in dissent and argued the court should have upheld the federal judge’s order extending the deadline for counting late ballots. “As the COVID pandemic rages, the court has failed to adequately protect the nation’s voters. Tens of thousands of Wisconsinites, through no fault of their own, may receive their mail ballots too late to return them by Election Day,” she said.

Earlier, Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan on the 7th Circuit, had cited the so-called “Purcell principle” whereby the Supreme Court has frowned upon federal judges ordering changes in a state’s voting rules on the eve of an election.

But lawyers for the Democrats pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in April that allowed for counting late-arriving ballots in Wisconsin. Then, the court in an opinion siding with the Wisconsin Republicans, said ballots that were “postmarked by Election Day” would be counted in the primary, even if they arrived up to six days late.

In their appeal, the Democrats had asked the court to adopt the same rule now for the general election. They had the support of Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat.

“The pandemic has created a dangerous choice for Wisconsin’s voters: risk exposure to the virus and the possibility of infection, illness and death, or minimize that risk by voting absentee,” he told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief. “Because of the continuing severe upsurge in COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin … it is likely that an increasing number of Wisconsin’s voters will choose in the remaining weeks before the election to protect themselves and vote absentee.”

The state Legislature, controlled by Republicans, appealed to the 7th Circuit and won a ruling to bar the counting of late-arriving mail ballots.

Wisconsin’s lawmakers had urged the high court to stand aside. “The legislature’s decision not to change Wisconsin’s exceedingly generous election laws for the November 2020 election falls squarely within its broad authority … and is thus not subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary,” they said.

In their appeal, Democrats pointed to a strong dissent from 7th Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush. “This is a travesty,” she wrote. “The inevitable result of the court’s decision today will be that many thousands of Wisconsin citizens will lose their right to vote despite doing everything they reasonably can to exercise it.”

___

(c)2020 Los Angeles Times

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

A+
a-

Supreme Court

December 5, 2021
by Dan McCue
Dobbs Now Supreme Court’s Most Anticipated Decision In Years

WASHINGTON — It wasn’t even the top headline in The New York Times the day after the decision was announced.... Read More

WASHINGTON — It wasn’t even the top headline in The New York Times the day after the decision was announced. That distinction went to the death of former President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had died at age 64 after suffering a heart attack at his ranch... Read More

Justices' Abortion Remarks: Is it Time to Overturn Roe?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court heard arguments in which it was asked to overturn a nationwide right to abortion that has... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court heard arguments in which it was asked to overturn a nationwide right to abortion that has existed for nearly 50 years. The fate of the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States and its 1992 ruling in... Read More

December 1, 2021
by Tom Ramstack
Supreme Court Case Hints at Change In Federal Agency Regulation Decisions

WASHINGTON — Conservative judges on the Supreme Court suggested this week during arguments in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit over Medicare drug... Read More

WASHINGTON — Conservative judges on the Supreme Court suggested this week during arguments in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit over Medicare drug reimbursement that now might be the time to overturn a decades-old guiding principle of administrative law. The issue in American Hospital Association v. Becerra is a... Read More

Justices Signal They'll OK New Abortion Limits, May Toss Roe

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday signaled it would uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion and... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday signaled it would uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion and may go much further to overturn the nationwide right to abortion that has existed for nearly 50 years. The fate of the court’s historic 1973 Roe... Read More

Abortion Rights at Stake in Historic Supreme Court Arguments

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion rights are on the line at the Supreme Court in historic arguments over the landmark ruling nearly 50... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion rights are on the line at the Supreme Court in historic arguments over the landmark ruling nearly 50 years ago that declared a nationwide right to end a pregnancy. The justices on Wednesday will weigh whether to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15... Read More

Supreme Court Set to Take Up All-or-Nothing Abortion Fight

WASHINGTON (AP) — Both sides are telling the Supreme Court there's no middle ground in Wednesday's showdown over abortion. The justices can... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — Both sides are telling the Supreme Court there's no middle ground in Wednesday's showdown over abortion. The justices can either reaffirm the constitutional right to an abortion or wipe it away altogether. Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that declared a nationwide right to abortion, is... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top