.jpg)
Minority judges said the extension – by a state-court consent order – threatened “chaos” and deprived the North Carolina legislature of its constitutionally mandated role. Dissidents also issued an unusual plea to Berger and Moore to take the fight to the Supreme Court urgently.
“This case presents a clear opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn a clear constitutional order and give the federal election process a strong commitment to the rule of law. Allowing the board changes to take effect now, two weeks before the election and after half a million people voted in North Carolina, “Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson and Steven Aggie wrote in an opinion attached to Judge Paul Nimier.
“We urge the plaintiffs to take this case to the Supreme Court immediately. Not tomorrow. Not the next day. Now, ”the dissenting judges added.
The dissidents said that without a clear indication from the Supreme Court, the flood of cases is threatening to confuse the upcoming elections. Many cases seek to persuade state judges or executive officers to extend voting deadlines or waive requirements such as witness signatures due to epidemics.
The dissenting judges argued that the move should empower state legislatures to set rules for federal elections in their states.
“Infinite suits have been brought in to change the election rules set by the state legislatures,” the differences wrote. “This widespread joke threatens to erode people’s confidence in our elections. And the constant court battles mock the clear representation of the constitution of this power in the state legislatures. ”
Two majority judges, James Winn and Diana Motz, accused the Supreme Court of exaggerating the impact of the extension of voter ballot receipts and ignoring the Supreme Court’s precedents governing the election.
“After reading the dissenting opinion… someone thinks the sky is falling,” Vin wrote. “The change of three to nine days after election day is just an extension for timely receipt and counting of ballots. Just.
Vinn noted that the North Carolina Electoral Board, which intervenes several times to adjust the ballot receipt deadline, has done so twice for hurricanes in the past two years.
Win, the appointees of President Barack Obama also aimed at the attitude of the dissenting people by urging the right of the states. He also accused the disgruntled judges of overturning the 2006 Supreme Court decision. Purcell v. Gonzalez, Which advises federal judges not to make last-minute changes to the state election process.
“Our comrades Justify Federal court intervention – one thing Purcell clearly The opposite advice – the Supreme Court based on their own views Should be Said in Purcell, ”Vinay wrote. “We cannot agree with the extension of the jurisdiction of the federal court at the expense of the right of states to regulate their own elections. Doing so leads to improper judicial activism.”
Win also said his dissenting colleagues’ claims that a change of turnout would frighten voters were statements about how to treat a ballot marked post-election day.
“It’s hard to imagine what chaos our colleagues can imagine here,” he wrote. “Voter behavior cannot be affected in one way or another by our decision. વધારો The extension of time limits only changes two things: more votes by mail will be counted instead of being canceled due to mail delays, and fewer voters will have to vote face to face to contract the novel coronavirus. Just oddly swollen version Purcell This would be considered ‘voter confusion’ or detrimental in any way. “
On Monday, a U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling extending the ballot-receipt deadline in that state to three days after election day. Four GOP-appointed judges would have blocked the order, but Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the High Court’s Liberals to reject the stay. As a result Pennsylvania implemented the Supreme Court decision at least just now.
Many of the legal arguments in the North Carolina case are similar, although its path through the state and federal courts was more Byzantine.
The Supreme Court’s impasse on election-related issues is likely to break with Monday, when the Senate is expected to vote on President Donald Trump’s appointment of Judge Amy Connie Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg last month. .
It is unclear if Barrett will be sworn in in the next two weeks, with election-related emergency petitions pending in the High Court, and whether she or the broader court will hesitate to intervene in the election process within days of her departure on November 3. Vote.
North Carolina G.O.P. An attorney for the leaders, who sought unsuccessful intervention from the Court of Appeal, Berger and Moore, did not respond to a message Tuesday night asking whether the legislators planned to take into account the people’s suggestion of an urgent petition to the Supreme Court. .
