Court reinstates Texas's process for tossing absentee ballots over mismatched signatures "A federal appeals court reinstated Texas's procedures for rejecting ballots with signatures that don't appear to match those on record with elections officials, temporarily blocking a district judge's ruling that the process is unconstitutional. A three-judge panel for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed an injunction against the mismatched-signatures procedure while a legal challenge plays out." "The lawsuit was brought last year by voting rights groups and voters who say that their ballots had been unfairly rejected by elections officials. They argued in their complaint that the process does not abide by any uniform standards for reviewing ballot signatures and does not allow voters to prove the signature is valid if their ballots are flagged." https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ass-process-for-tossing-absentee-ballots-over There is no defensible reason why, if the ballot in question is received early enough, election officials can't notify the voter (as is done in CO) about the problem with the signature in order to ensure the vote is counted. Especially given that, for the 523rd time, there is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in the US. This action falls under the broad category of Repub voter suppression manifested in ways varying from ID laws, to purging voter rolls, to the new poll tax in FL for felons, to the measures being taken to throw out mail-in/absentee ballots. It is a subversion of democracy playing out in plain sight.
Once in a while democracy wins and Repubs lose. Supreme Court denies GOP request to stop extended deadline for mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, a key state for Trump "The Supreme Court on Monday night allowed Pennsylvania election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to three days after Election Day, refusing a Republican request to stop a pandemic-related procedure approved by the state’s highest court. The justices’ action involved an arcane voting practice but carried outsize importance because of Pennsylvania’s pivotal role in the presidential election. It prompted a fierce battle between the state’s Democrats and Republicans." https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d106a6-08a6-11eb-a166-dc429b380d10_story.html But here's the thing. Roberts stood in the way of the conservatives on the court from facilitating Repub voter suppression. Once Barrett is on the bench Roberts will be powerless to stop it. Meaning, we can expect more voter suppression efforts from Repubs in the future now that they know the SC is friendly to the cause.
It is not the duty of the supreme court to make or change laws. Their duty is to make sure that they are followed. In the event that they are unconstitutional, their duty is to strike them down. Even where the law is unreasonable, that is the way they should rule. It is the responsibility to the other two branches of government to make and approve laws. If the citizens of that state do not like the laws, they should vote them out of office. That is how democracy, or our approximation of it, works.
It would appear Repubs are fearful of high voter turnout. https://www.newsweek.com/early-voting-bonkers-texas-dems-aim-win-state-first-time-44-years-1540368
Always ignored and swept under the rug is the fact that a state legislature has sole authority and near plenary power over election processes subject to certain federal laws, none of which address this issue. Otherwise courts have no say in the matter, at least legally, ala Texas and different from Pennsylvania. A plaintiff who simply does not like the process can try to get the legislature to change it or go pound sand and cry in his beer. FL has no poll tax. Quit making stuff up.
Not surprisingly, the judge who wrote the decision is a Reagan appointee. That's what the GOP really means when they talk about appointing originalist judges to courts. They mean RW extremist judges that further corporate interests and help them steal elections and preserve minority rule. Because if the majority of the vote would actually count, the GOP would never hold the WH again, unless they moved significantly to the left.
Yes and no. Sometimes justice just cannot wait for dems and repubs in congress to agree on ****, or wait for an election for an educated public to vote on the side of justice, when, in present time, an injustice exists where correcting that justice cannot wait. The case with the votes being allowed after Nov 3, is precisely just a case, a case where justice needs to be attended to, immediately, with all deliberate speed. If the law is anything, it should be this: Justice. Justice is the law, it is the one reason a judge is called 'a justice' and the symbol of jurisprudence are the 'scales of justice'. I haven't reviewed the findings, but SCOTUS did rule in favor of extending the time that votes could be counted. That sounds a lot to me, that they ruled on the side of justice. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/19/politics/pennsylvania-mail-in-voting-supreme-court/index.html If Barrett doesn't understand it, then she should not be allowed on the court. To me, allowing the votes cast to be counted after the nov 3 date, is a case for justice, because of the virus, the virus creates an extraordinary circumstance where to vote in person is risking one's life, and there simply isn't enough time to wait for repubs and dems to 'change the law' as it were, or wait around for the electorate to elect different people. These judges will be on the court for decades, and to have someone on there that doesn't understand the above, that's a serious concern. I'm of the opinion Barret would have sided with conservatives on the recent ruling. and for that reason alone, I feel she is disqualified.
That is the way it is with laws. The laws were written that way for a reason. What you are \proposing is changing the rules while the game is in progress. That rarely works.
there should never a state of existence where everything is absolute. With PA, we have an extraordinary circumstance. No one is changing the rules, justice is the rule, some judges think that way, some don't, and that some have, and some haven't, that has been the case since the beginning, it's not 'changing the rules' is a judicial philosophy some judges have, and some don't.
Those laws were in effect though out this three quarters of year with the pandemic. There was ample time to change the laws and there was and still is ample time for the public to comply with them.
The Supreme Court is making laws. That is not their job. Is there some particular reason why residents of Pennsylvania cannot get their ballots in the mail in time to arrive by election day? When that decision was made, there was fifteen days until the election. Why is it that suddenly they need eighteen days to get their ballot in? After three days after the election, will they need three more days? What is the magic of eighteen days versus fifteen days?
No, it means that if you have a problem with thr law you change it legislatively or through Article V rather than reinterpreting your amendment into law by judicial fiat. It's not that hard.