The Supreme Court just defeated the Republican Party, and rejected the GOP’s attempt to make it harder for voters to cast absent votes on Rhode Island. There are only three courts in public distribution Republican National Committee v. Common Cause Rhode Island – Guidelines Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.
Republican National Committee is the GOP’s latest recent attempt to make it harder for voters to throw away absentee ballots amid a pandemic that is likely to discourage many voters from collecting at the polls.
Normally, the law in Rhode Island requires that absentee ballots be signed by two witnesses as a notary. In a normal election, this is a fairly small restriction on voters: Most individuals will have a fairly easy time finding two friends, neighbors or colleagues who can act as witnesses – and fewer voters typically ask for absent votes at first place if it is safe to go to the polls. However, in a time of social distance, many voters could struggle to find the required witnesses.
Importantly, Rhode Island’s top election officials all agree with the plaintiff in this case that the requirement of witnesses should be raised in the upcoming state elections. After two suffrage groups and three voters succeeded Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea and the seven members of the Rhode Island Electoral Council, seeking a waiver of the witness requirement in these elections, Gorbea and her fellow defenders agreed in a federal court order – known as a “Consent Judgment” – giving the complainants the relief they seek.
The only reason this case was for the justifications is that the Republican Party, which is not even a party to the lawsuit, asked the Court to block this judgment for assent. (Federal rules of judicial procedure can sometimes “intervene” in a lawsuit, and even request a verdict that the parties do not want to appeal.)
But a majority of the Supreme Court rejected the GOP’s arguments. “State election officials support the defamation decree, and no state official has expressed opposition.” the brief order of the Court in Republican National Committee explains. Under those circumstances, the GOP lacks “a recognized interest” in forcing the state to enforce a requirement that its own officials want to withhold the top election.
In short assignments such as the one submitted Republican National Committee, the Court does not always disclose how each justice voted. We know that at least five courts voted against the GOP, because at least five votes are needed to form a majority. And we know that Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch voted with the GOP because they chose to dissent publicly. We do not know, with certainty, how the other six justices voted.
However, it is very likely that Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority. Although Roberts did not disclose his vote, the court ruled in favor Republican National Committee is consistent with Roberts’ prior decisions in Covid-related cases. And the parties defending the verdict on the consent all relied heavily on Roberts’ previous advice in their letters.
Although Roberts is a Conservative Republican, he votes more often with his Liberal colleagues than with any other member of the Conservative bloc of the Court.
Roberts’ Covid-related advice emphasizes that courts should adjourn to “the politically responsible officials of the States” when they announce public health policy in connection with the pandemic. The decision of the Court in Republican National Committee, which revolves around the fact that Rhode Island’s election officials agree with the plaintiff, is consistent with Roberts’ previous calls for blackouts for state officials.
Roberts’ aversion to officials often runs counter to voting rights.
Just last month, in Merrill v. People First of Alabama, the Supreme Court blocked a lower court decision that stopped a requirement of Alabama witnesses that is quite similar to that in Rhode Island. That decision was 5-4, with all five Republicans voting in the majority, including Roberts.
The primary difference between Merrill en Republican National Committeehowever, is that state officials supported the plaintiffs in the later case, while Alabama state officials opted to defend their absent ballots in court. “Other than Merrill v. People First of Alabama, and other similar cases where a state defends its own law, ”the Court ruled Republican National Committee declares, “here the state election officials support the challenging decree, and no state official has voiced opposition.”
As mentioned above, Roberts’ pandemic-related advice often focuses on his belief that courts should refer to “the politically responsible officials of the States.” Indeed, less than two weeks ago, in Lytse v. Idaho refund, Roberts accused a lower court of failing to “give sufficient weight to the state’s discretionary judgments on how to prioritize limited state resources over the electoral system as a whole” amid the pandemic.
That means that Republican National Committee is probably a very narrow victory for voting rights. Roberts’ aversion to state officials suggests he will likely only vote for suffrage in cases where states are led by people who already support suffrage. If government officials oppose voting rights, Roberts is likely to run for office.
Moreover, when state officials are divided over changing their usual election practices to prevent voters from being infected with Covid-19, Roberts has not shown much sympathy for suffrage.
Consider, for example Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, a case in April in which the Republican majority of the Supreme Court effectively ordered Wisconsin to cast many absent votes. Although many Wisconsin officials supported a lower court order that would have ensured that many of those ballots were counted, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature did not.
Roberts sat in that case with the GOP legislature.
The Rhode Island decision, in other words, suggests that the Supreme Court will not fully act as a rubber stamp for the Republican Party if the GOP asks the Court to restrict the right to vote. But that decision should not give most voting judges much comfort.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we were not sure how it would go. Today, we are afraid to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they appreciate explanation and because they appreciate it other people can also access it. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is essential for a functioning democracy. That has never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, protests of racial justice, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone does not allow us to continue to create the quality and volume that this moment demands. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Earn today from as little as $ 3.
