The Supreme Court just issued an order Democracy National Committee Vs. Wisconsin State Legislature Determined that the lower federal court should not extend the deadline for Wisconsin voters to vote by mail.
Judgment, on the lines of the party -3-. The decision was made by votes, it is not particularly surprising. The lower court ruled that expansion was necessary to ensure voters could vote during the epidemic, but the court has repeatedly insisted that federal courts should avoid state officials’ decisions on how to accept the epidemic. Order in Monday night National Committee for Democracy It is consistent with previous decisions that require respect.
Surprisingly, there are two decisive opinions by Justices Neil Gorschuch and Brett Kavnauf, each of which takes into account the most fundamental principles of American constitutional law: the Supreme Court of the United States is the final word. Is the final word on questions of law.
This part of power is embedded in the very system of our government. As the Supreme Court has explained, the states and the federal government live together in a system of “two-tier sovereignty”. Both the federal government and the states have independent authority to make their own laws, to enforce them, and to decide how their laws will apply in individual cases.
If the Supreme Court of the United States had the power to overturn the state Supreme Court on the question of state law, this whole system of dual sovereignty would be broken. That means all state law will ultimately be subject to the will of nine federal judges.
However, in National Committee for DemocracyBoth Gorsch and Kavanoh allege that this very basic rule, the state’s Supreme Court, has a final say on how to interpret their state’s law, indicating that this rule does not apply to most elections.
Just eight days before the presidential election, they also sent a big signal that the long-standing rules governing the elections could now be unsettled. Republican election lawyers are skeptical, and are thinking about new attacks on voting rights that they could launch in the coming weeks.
Potential seismic re-interpretation of American election law
Gorschke notes in his supportive opinion, to which Kavanohoff is attached, that the constitution provides that “the times, locations, and administrators for holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be determined by its legislature in each state.” A separate constitutional provision stipulates that “each state shall appoint members of the College Ledge of Elections” as directed by the Legislature in the Legislative Assembly.
According to Gorsch, the key word in these constitutional provisions is “legislature.” He claims that the word “assembly” should be read hyper-literally. The constitution provides that state legislatures – not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials – have the primary responsibility for determining election rules, he wrote.
The effects of this approach are very compelling. Just last week, the Supreme Court split 4-4 over whether to overturn a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that would have allowed some mail-in ballots to count even after election day. Both Gorsch and Kavanagh disagreed, although due to lack of written opinions, They also did not explain why the state would have overturned the Supreme Court decision.
We now know why. Based on Gorsch’s logic National Committee for Democracy, It is clear that both he and Kavanagh believe that the United States Supreme Court can overturn the state’s Supreme Court, at least when federal judges disagree with the state’s approach to the Supreme Court’s election law.
That is, in simple terms, not how the balance of power between federal and state courts works. That’s not how it ever worked.
Nor is it appropriate that the word “assembly” should be read in the ultra-literal way suggested by Gorsch. For more than a century, the Supreme Court has understood the term “legislature,” as it is used in the relevant constitutional provisions, to refer to what is a legitimate legal process within that state. Held recently in court Arizona Independent Legislative Commission v. Arizona State Legislature (2015), the term “legislature” should read “according to the state’s instructions for enacting legislation, which may include a referendum and a veto of the governor.”
But Gorsch’s opinion suggests that this long-running rule may soon be over (again, he said, “state legislatures – not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials – set election rules.” Bears the primary responsibility to do “). State supreme courts may lose their power to enforce the state constitution while protecting voting rights. State governors may lose their power to veto election laws, which will be a surprising development when you actually see that when you consider that every state needs to create new legislative maps in 2021, and many states have Republican legislatures and democratic governors.
Return of Bush v. Gore
Cowanhoff, it’s worth it, takes a slightly more moderate approach to his agreed opinion. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a state election law can overturn a state legislature’s “clearly stated intent” in a case involving state law.
How “obvious” should the alleged error of state court be? The answer is unclear. But it is clear that Kavanagh rejected the long-running rule that he and his fellow federal judges must always avoid the Supreme Court on questions of state law.
That position can also have a profound effect. In 2018, for example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that G.O.P. The Republican-controlled Supreme Court of the United States would have overturned such a decision by the status quo of the map drawn by the state legislature controlled by the state legislature.
Kavanagh also derives most of his reasoning from a dishonest source. The decision of the Supreme Court earlier today Bush v. Gore (2000), which effectively influenced President George W. Bush. Handed over to Bush, cited only once in the Supreme Court’s opinion – and it was not joined by any other justice following the dissenting opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas. .
But Kavanagh cites Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s unanimous opinion. Bush, Who adopted an overly literal approach to the term “assembly”. It appears Bush v. Gore, Arguably the most biased decision in the history of the court – and one that helped Kevnahoff to take legal action – in favor of the main members of the court.
It is worth considering National Committee for Democracy The Senate was tasked with literally voting for the confirmation of incoming Justice Amy Connie Barrett, a staunch conservative who will not commit to withdrawing from the 2020 election-related cases during his confirmation hearing.
That means last week’s decision to allow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to stand may be too short-lived. The decision, after all, was a -4–4, in which Chief Justice John Roberts voted with three Liberals on the court. With Barrett, the right part of the court could well get a fifth vote to advance the state’s Supreme Court decision – and to order an unknown number of votes thrown out in the process.
It is unknown at this time what he will do after leaving the post National Committee for Democracy Will be at the next election. Last April, nearly 1,000,000 ballots arrived late during Wisconsin’s primary election, but were still counted due to a lower court ruling. Supreme Court decision in National Committee for Democracy The countdown to the 2020 general election will prevent a similar late vote. The deadline for the Wisconsin Mail-in Ballot is 8pm on election day.
However, 000,000,000 ballots could easily run for office, if only they were close (in 2001, Trump won the state by a razor-thin margin of nearly 5,000 votes). Margins as large as they can minimize the impact of a court decision and ensure voters get their vote counted by early voting.
But while the decision will not change the outcome of the 2020 election, its impact is likely to be felt for years or even decades – assuming Republicans retain their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. American election law has entered a chaotic new world, where even the most basic rules are largely ready to take hold. And the Supreme Court has just sent a clear signal that it will probably publish one of the most well-established rules on fire.
Will you help keep Vox free for all?
The United States is in the midst of the most consequential presidential election of our lives. It is important that all Americans are able to get clear, concise information about what the election results might mean for their lives and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission on Vox. But our exclusive brand of open journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market improve, your resource will be an important part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute less than $ 3 today.
