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 woman deposits her ballot in an official ballot drop box at the satellite polling station outside Philadelphia City Hall on October 27, 2020 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images)
'Drop It Off or Vote in Person,' Advocates Plea as Supreme Court Suggests It Could Toss Out Late Pennsylvania Ballots After Election
"Don't leave your vote in the hands of the Supreme Court."
Oct 29, 2020
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed down a pair of closely watched decisions allowing Pennsylvania and North Carolina to accept absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day, prompting a sigh of relief among voting rights advocates who were dreading the possibility of mass invalidation of late-arriving ballots.
But analysts were quick to warn the high court's decision in the Pennsylvania case left open the possibility that ballots arriving after November 3 could be tossed out by the Supreme Court at a later date--a move President Donald Trump has repeatedly made clear he would welcome.
"There's a chance, however slim, that those late-arriving ballots could decide the whole election. If SCOTUS throws them out and ends up handing Trump a second term, it would make Bush v. Gore look like a warm-up act."
--Mark Joseph Stern, Slate
Justice Samuel Alito, with the backing of fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote in a statement (pdf) accompanying the Pennsylvania ruling that he "reluctantly" concluded "there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election," leaving the court no choice but to reject state Republicans' request to block a lower court order allowing ballots to arrive by November 6.
"That does not mean, however, that the state court decision must escape our review," Alito added, pointing to Pennsylvania state officials' order that absentee ballots received after 8:00 pm on Election Day be segregated from ballots that arrived before then.
"If the State Supreme Court's decision is ultimately overturned," Alito wrote, "a targeted remedy will be available."
As HuffPost explained, "This means Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are open to a legal challenge brought by President Donald Trump after Election Day that would invalidate votes cast legally in Pennsylvania after the votes are cast--when Trump and the justices would know how many votes he needs to have invalidated to win reelection. Gorsuch doesn't explicitly state his support for tossing ballots after the election in the North Carolina case, but it appears the same logic would apply because both cases raise the same legal question."
Mark Joseph Stern, court reporter for Slate, called Alito's statement "pretty frightening" and spotlighted the potential consequences of a post-election Supreme Court ruling invalidating ballots that arrived after November 3, even if they were postmarked on time and legally permitted under state law.
"Alito described this potential 'targeted remedy' as 'modest relief.' It would be anything but: This 'relief' would likely involve the U.S. Supreme Court nullifying thousands of ballots cast under a lawful court order," Stern wrote Wednesday. "It's hard to overstate the potential impact of such a dramatic action. FiveThirtyEight reports a 37.1 percent chance that the election will come down to Pennsylvania."
"If the race is close enough, the winner of Pennsylvania--and the presidency--might come down to a few thousand ballots," Stern continued. "There's a chance, however slim, that those late-arriving ballots, in other words, could decide the whole election. If SCOTUS throws them out and ends up handing Trump a second term, it would make Bush v. Gore look like a warm-up act."
In the wake of the high court's rulings in Pennsylvania and North Carolina--which newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not join due to time constraints--voting rights advocates and election experts reiterated their urgent calls for voters to drop off their ballots in person if possible to avoid getting caught up in persistent mail delays caused by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.
Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, tweeted late Wednesday that "high voter turnout in PA with a decisive win will keep the Court out post-election."
"Most important for PA voters right now," said Gupta, "is to vote and drop off ballots as early as possible or vote in-person."
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 on Wednesday handed down a pair of closely watched decisions allowing Pennsylvania and North Carolina to accept absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day, prompting a sigh of relief among voting rights advocates who were dreading the possibility of mass invalidation of late-arriving ballots.
But analysts were quick to warn the high court's decision in the Pennsylvania case left open the possibility that ballots arriving after November 3 could be tossed out by the Supreme Court at a later date--a move President Donald Trump has repeatedly made clear he would welcome.
"There's a chance, however slim, that those late-arriving ballots could decide the whole election. If SCOTUS throws them out and ends up handing Trump a second term, it would make Bush v. Gore look like a warm-up act."
--Mark Joseph Stern, Slate
Justice Samuel Alito, with the backing of fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote in a statement (pdf) accompanying the Pennsylvania ruling that he "reluctantly" concluded "there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election," leaving the court no choice but to reject state Republicans' request to block a lower court order allowing ballots to arrive by November 6.
"That does not mean, however, that the state court decision must escape our review," Alito added, pointing to Pennsylvania state officials' order that absentee ballots received after 8:00 pm on Election Day be segregated from ballots that arrived before then.
"If the State Supreme Court's decision is ultimately overturned," Alito wrote, "a targeted remedy will be available."
As HuffPost explained, "This means Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are open to a legal challenge brought by President Donald Trump after Election Day that would invalidate votes cast legally in Pennsylvania after the votes are cast--when Trump and the justices would know how many votes he needs to have invalidated to win reelection. Gorsuch doesn't explicitly state his support for tossing ballots after the election in the North Carolina case, but it appears the same logic would apply because both cases raise the same legal question."
Mark Joseph Stern, court reporter for Slate, called Alito's statement "pretty frightening" and spotlighted the potential consequences of a post-election Supreme Court ruling invalidating ballots that arrived after November 3, even if they were postmarked on time and legally permitted under state law.
"Alito described this potential 'targeted remedy' as 'modest relief.' It would be anything but: This 'relief' would likely involve the U.S. Supreme Court nullifying thousands of ballots cast under a lawful court order," Stern wrote Wednesday. "It's hard to overstate the potential impact of such a dramatic action. FiveThirtyEight reports a 37.1 percent chance that the election will come down to Pennsylvania."
"If the race is close enough, the winner of Pennsylvania--and the presidency--might come down to a few thousand ballots," Stern continued. "There's a chance, however slim, that those late-arriving ballots, in other words, could decide the whole election. If SCOTUS throws them out and ends up handing Trump a second term, it would make Bush v. Gore look like a warm-up act."
In the wake of the high court's rulings in Pennsylvania and North Carolina--which newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not join due to time constraints--voting rights advocates and election experts reiterated their urgent calls for voters to drop off their ballots in person if possible to avoid getting caught up in persistent mail delays caused by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.
Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, tweeted late Wednesday that "high voter turnout in PA with a decisive win will keep the Court out post-election."
"Most important for PA voters right now," said Gupta, "is to vote and drop off ballots as early as possible or vote in-person."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed down a pair of closely watched decisions allowing Pennsylvania and North Carolina to accept absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day, prompting a sigh of relief among voting rights advocates who were dreading the possibility of mass invalidation of late-arriving ballots.
But analysts were quick to warn the high court's decision in the Pennsylvania case left open the possibility that ballots arriving after November 3 could be tossed out by the Supreme Court at a later date--a move President Donald Trump has repeatedly made clear he would welcome.
"There's a chance, however slim, that those late-arriving ballots could decide the whole election. If SCOTUS throws them out and ends up handing Trump a second term, it would make Bush v. Gore look like a warm-up act."
--Mark Joseph Stern, Slate
Justice Samuel Alito, with the backing of fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote in a statement (pdf) accompanying the Pennsylvania ruling that he "reluctantly" concluded "there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election," leaving the court no choice but to reject state Republicans' request to block a lower court order allowing ballots to arrive by November 6.
"That does not mean, however, that the state court decision must escape our review," Alito added, pointing to Pennsylvania state officials' order that absentee ballots received after 8:00 pm on Election Day be segregated from ballots that arrived before then.
"If the State Supreme Court's decision is ultimately overturned," Alito wrote, "a targeted remedy will be available."
As HuffPost explained, "This means Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are open to a legal challenge brought by President Donald Trump after Election Day that would invalidate votes cast legally in Pennsylvania after the votes are cast--when Trump and the justices would know how many votes he needs to have invalidated to win reelection. Gorsuch doesn't explicitly state his support for tossing ballots after the election in the North Carolina case, but it appears the same logic would apply because both cases raise the same legal question."
Mark Joseph Stern, court reporter for Slate, called Alito's statement "pretty frightening" and spotlighted the potential consequences of a post-election Supreme Court ruling invalidating ballots that arrived after November 3, even if they were postmarked on time and legally permitted under state law.
"Alito described this potential 'targeted remedy' as 'modest relief.' It would be anything but: This 'relief' would likely involve the U.S. Supreme Court nullifying thousands of ballots cast under a lawful court order," Stern wrote Wednesday. "It's hard to overstate the potential impact of such a dramatic action. FiveThirtyEight reports a 37.1 percent chance that the election will come down to Pennsylvania."
"If the race is close enough, the winner of Pennsylvania--and the presidency--might come down to a few thousand ballots," Stern continued. "There's a chance, however slim, that those late-arriving ballots, in other words, could decide the whole election. If SCOTUS throws them out and ends up handing Trump a second term, it would make Bush v. Gore look like a warm-up act."
In the wake of the high court's rulings in Pennsylvania and North Carolina--which newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not join due to time constraints--voting rights advocates and election experts reiterated their urgent calls for voters to drop off their ballots in person if possible to avoid getting caught up in persistent mail delays caused by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.
Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, tweeted late Wednesday that "high voter turnout in PA with a decisive win will keep the Court out post-election."
"Most important for PA voters right now," said Gupta, "is to vote and drop off ballots as early as possible or vote in-person."
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.