SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A voter puts a ballot in a ballot box on June 9, 2020 in North Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo: Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
After Supreme Court Guts Expansion of Mail-In Voting in Wisconsin, Fears Grow of Similar Rulings in Pennsylvania and North Carolina
Republicans and the Trump campaign are hoping the Supreme Court will reject efforts to extend the deadline for receiving absentee ballots.
Oct 27, 2020
The U.S. Supreme Court, which now includes right-wing Justice Amy Coney Barrett, will soon weigh in on Republican Party efforts to narrow the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots in the key battleground states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis, allegations of widespread voter suppression, concerns about mail delays, and fears President Donald Trump will foment Election Night chaos.
On Monday, the same day the Senate confirmed 48-year-old Coney Barrett and strengthened the court's conservative majority, the Supreme Court barred the state of Wisconsin from extending its Election Day deadline for the arrival of absentee ballots. In a 5-3 decision, the court rejected a bid by Wisconsin Democrats and voting rights groups to allow mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received by November 9. Instead, the court sided with Republicans to keep the current deadline which means that only mail-in ballots that arrive by 8:00 pm on Election Day will be counted.
That decision looms large as voting rights advocates eye expected decisions from the court regarding ballots in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Republicans last week made a second request to stop a mail-in ballot deadline extension. According to CNN:
In Pennsylvania, a state critical to President Donald Trump's path to victory, the state Republican Party asked the high court last week to reconsider whether the state should count ballots received within three days of Election Day, even if they do not have a legible postmark. The court issued a 4-4 ruling earlier this month denying the GOP challenge and leaving in place a lower-court ruling allowing the ballot receipt extension to stand. Now Republicans want the court to decide the case in an expedited fashion.
If their effort is successful, The Hill reported, the Republicans' "long-shot bid could disenfranchise a number of mail-in voters, with the harm likely to fall disproportionately on Biden supporters, who are considered about twice as likely as Trump backers to vote by mail."
The Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Board of Elections, in a filing Tuesday submitted by respondents including Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, called for Barrett to recuse herself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the justice's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned given the circumstances of her nomination and confirmation."
In North Carolina--a state upon which the president's "reelection hopes could hinge"--state election officials extended from Nov. 6 to Nov. 12 the deadline for ballots to be counted that are postmarked by Election Day. The Trump campaign asked the top court to block the extended deadline after the state GOP failed in its effort to do so at a federal appeals court.
Pointing to the Pennsylvania case, Scott Lemieux, a lecturer in the political science department at the University of Washington and co-author of "Judicial Review and Democratic Theory," opined that it could "directly aid in the president's re-election efforts."
"But even if the Supreme Court ultimately does not intervene in Pennsylvania," Lemieux wrote in his NBC News op-ed, "Barrett's elevation will consolidate control of the court by judges who are not just remarkably hostile to voting rights, but who have also increasingly held that a state's interest in preventing a small number of fraudulent ballots from being cast--none of which have been shown to affect a race--trumps Americans' broad access to the franchise."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. Supreme Court, which now includes right-wing Justice Amy Coney Barrett, will soon weigh in on Republican Party efforts to narrow the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots in the key battleground states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis, allegations of widespread voter suppression, concerns about mail delays, and fears President Donald Trump will foment Election Night chaos.
On Monday, the same day the Senate confirmed 48-year-old Coney Barrett and strengthened the court's conservative majority, the Supreme Court barred the state of Wisconsin from extending its Election Day deadline for the arrival of absentee ballots. In a 5-3 decision, the court rejected a bid by Wisconsin Democrats and voting rights groups to allow mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received by November 9. Instead, the court sided with Republicans to keep the current deadline which means that only mail-in ballots that arrive by 8:00 pm on Election Day will be counted.
That decision looms large as voting rights advocates eye expected decisions from the court regarding ballots in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Republicans last week made a second request to stop a mail-in ballot deadline extension. According to CNN:
In Pennsylvania, a state critical to President Donald Trump's path to victory, the state Republican Party asked the high court last week to reconsider whether the state should count ballots received within three days of Election Day, even if they do not have a legible postmark. The court issued a 4-4 ruling earlier this month denying the GOP challenge and leaving in place a lower-court ruling allowing the ballot receipt extension to stand. Now Republicans want the court to decide the case in an expedited fashion.
If their effort is successful, The Hill reported, the Republicans' "long-shot bid could disenfranchise a number of mail-in voters, with the harm likely to fall disproportionately on Biden supporters, who are considered about twice as likely as Trump backers to vote by mail."
The Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Board of Elections, in a filing Tuesday submitted by respondents including Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, called for Barrett to recuse herself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the justice's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned given the circumstances of her nomination and confirmation."
In North Carolina--a state upon which the president's "reelection hopes could hinge"--state election officials extended from Nov. 6 to Nov. 12 the deadline for ballots to be counted that are postmarked by Election Day. The Trump campaign asked the top court to block the extended deadline after the state GOP failed in its effort to do so at a federal appeals court.
Pointing to the Pennsylvania case, Scott Lemieux, a lecturer in the political science department at the University of Washington and co-author of "Judicial Review and Democratic Theory," opined that it could "directly aid in the president's re-election efforts."
"But even if the Supreme Court ultimately does not intervene in Pennsylvania," Lemieux wrote in his NBC News op-ed, "Barrett's elevation will consolidate control of the court by judges who are not just remarkably hostile to voting rights, but who have also increasingly held that a state's interest in preventing a small number of fraudulent ballots from being cast--none of which have been shown to affect a race--trumps Americans' broad access to the franchise."
The U.S. Supreme Court, which now includes right-wing Justice Amy Coney Barrett, will soon weigh in on Republican Party efforts to narrow the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots in the key battleground states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis, allegations of widespread voter suppression, concerns about mail delays, and fears President Donald Trump will foment Election Night chaos.
On Monday, the same day the Senate confirmed 48-year-old Coney Barrett and strengthened the court's conservative majority, the Supreme Court barred the state of Wisconsin from extending its Election Day deadline for the arrival of absentee ballots. In a 5-3 decision, the court rejected a bid by Wisconsin Democrats and voting rights groups to allow mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received by November 9. Instead, the court sided with Republicans to keep the current deadline which means that only mail-in ballots that arrive by 8:00 pm on Election Day will be counted.
That decision looms large as voting rights advocates eye expected decisions from the court regarding ballots in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Republicans last week made a second request to stop a mail-in ballot deadline extension. According to CNN:
In Pennsylvania, a state critical to President Donald Trump's path to victory, the state Republican Party asked the high court last week to reconsider whether the state should count ballots received within three days of Election Day, even if they do not have a legible postmark. The court issued a 4-4 ruling earlier this month denying the GOP challenge and leaving in place a lower-court ruling allowing the ballot receipt extension to stand. Now Republicans want the court to decide the case in an expedited fashion.
If their effort is successful, The Hill reported, the Republicans' "long-shot bid could disenfranchise a number of mail-in voters, with the harm likely to fall disproportionately on Biden supporters, who are considered about twice as likely as Trump backers to vote by mail."
The Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Board of Elections, in a filing Tuesday submitted by respondents including Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, called for Barrett to recuse herself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the justice's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned given the circumstances of her nomination and confirmation."
In North Carolina--a state upon which the president's "reelection hopes could hinge"--state election officials extended from Nov. 6 to Nov. 12 the deadline for ballots to be counted that are postmarked by Election Day. The Trump campaign asked the top court to block the extended deadline after the state GOP failed in its effort to do so at a federal appeals court.
Pointing to the Pennsylvania case, Scott Lemieux, a lecturer in the political science department at the University of Washington and co-author of "Judicial Review and Democratic Theory," opined that it could "directly aid in the president's re-election efforts."
"But even if the Supreme Court ultimately does not intervene in Pennsylvania," Lemieux wrote in his NBC News op-ed, "Barrett's elevation will consolidate control of the court by judges who are not just remarkably hostile to voting rights, but who have also increasingly held that a state's interest in preventing a small number of fraudulent ballots from being cast--none of which have been shown to affect a race--trumps Americans' broad access to the franchise."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.