Political hackery at its worst: Supreme Court gives Wisconsin a green light to disenfranchise voters during the pandemic




Political hackery at its worst: Supreme Court gives Wisconsin a green light to disenfranchise voters during the pandemic
Political hackery at its worst: Supreme Court gives Wisconsin a green light to disenfranchise voters during the pandemic  

The Los Angeles Times warned in an editorial last month that the COVID-19 pandemic threatened not only the health of individuals but the democratic process. The Supreme Court exacerbated that infection Monday when the justices blocked a lower court's decision to extend the period in which Wisconsin voters could mail in absentee ballots.

Tuesday is election day in that state, and the Democratic presidential primary is only one of many contests on the ballot. As the COVID-19 crisis deepened, it became obvious that some voters would face a choice between exercising the franchise and protecting their health by staying home. But first the Wisconsin Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court failed to rise to the occasion.

On Monday the state Supreme Court rebuffed an attempt by Wisconsin's Democratic governor to suspend in-person voting on Tuesday and expand voting by mail. Then late Monday the U.S. Supreme Court, with Democratic and Republican appointees on opposite sides, stayed an order by a lower federal court requiring Wisconsin to count mail-in ballots if they arrived by April 13 even if they were mailed after election day.

In an unsigned opinion, the court's conservative justices providing a textbook example of exalting form over substance. The majority complained that the extended deadline for absentee ballots "fundamentally alters the nature of the election." It cited the precedent of a 2006 decision in which the court overturned an injunction preventing Arizona's use of a photo ID requirement - a ruling from a calmer time. Precedent loses its force in unprecedented circumstances.

This ruling is outrageously oblivious to the emergency posed by the pandemic. In the 2006 case the court emphasized that a state "indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process." But given the pandemic and the disruptions it creates for the election process, the lower court's order promoted exactly that objective.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a dissent signed by three other Democratic appointees, the court's order means that absentee voters must postmark their ballots by Tuesday, even if they didn't receive their ballots by that date because of a backlog. The result, she warned, could be "massive disenfranchisement."

As disturbing as the result of the court's ruling is the fact that it pitted conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents against liberal justices appointed by Democratic presidents, seeming to validate the perception that the justices are "politicians in robes." So much for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s campaign to portray the court as being aloof from partisan politics.


COMMENTS

More Related News

In blow to DOJ, Supreme Court won
In blow to DOJ, Supreme Court won't block order to move prisoners over coronavirus concerns
  • US
  • 2020-05-26 19:00:00Z

The Bureau of Prisons said more than 160 inmates and seven staff members at the Ohio prison have tested positive for COVID-19.

U.S. Supreme Court declines to block at-risk prisoner transfer plan
U.S. Supreme Court declines to block at-risk prisoner transfer plan
  • US
  • 2020-05-26 17:27:47Z

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block a judge's ruling that requires the U.S. government to evaluate moving up to 837 potentially at-risk prisoners out of a federal prison in Ohio due to concerns about the health risks of the coronavirus. The justices rejected a request by President Donald Trump's administration to put the lower court ruling on hold. The brief order noted that three of the nine-member court's conservatives - Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - would have granted the administration's request.

Which Party Would Benefit Most From Voting by Mail? It
Which Party Would Benefit Most From Voting by Mail? It's Complicated.

WASHINGTON -- Not so many months ago, casting a ballot by mail was a topic reserved for conferences of election administrators, a matter of voting mechanics blander than a water cracker. In Republican Arizona and Democratic Oregon as well as many other states, vast numbers of citizens not only voted by mail, but also loved it.That was before the mail ballot became seen as an essential element for voting in a pandemic, and before President Donald Trump weaponized mail voting with largely invented allegations that it would lead to massive voter fraud -- despite being used for years in Democratic and Republican states without controversy.Republican opposition seemed driven by the conviction...

Trump
Trump's Fifth Simple Trick for Stealing the Election Will Give You Nightmares-and Tear America Apart

So many shocking things have become normal now under this administration that it's kind of hard to imagine what would genuinely jolt the nation at this point. And with regard to November's election, the shocking-but-normal reality is that we know Donald Trump will cheat. There was a terrifying piece in the Times on Sunday laying out all the different moves he could pull to steal the election that his opponents are war-gaming to prepare for and counter. One little nugget from it: Trump could issue orders that impact cities in battleground states like "declaring a state of emergency, deploying the National Guard or forbidding gatherings of more than 10 people." Everyone knows he'll cheat....

Key swing state warns of November election crisis
Key swing state warns of November election crisis

The outcome in Pennsylvania could remain up in the air long past Election Day.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Latin America