In Rhode Island Case, Chief Justice Roberts Once Again Uses Shadow Docket to Maintain The Status Quo

"The status quo is one in which the challenged requirement has not been in effect, given the rules used in Rhode Island’s last election, and many Rhode Island voters may well hold that belief."

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Chief Justice Roberts is a riddle wrapped in an enigma made of cellophane. He perplexes people until he acts, and once he acts, his rationale is completely transparent. The latest entry on the shadow docket illustrates this point. In a series of recent election cases, the Chief (almost certainly) voted to grant emergency relief. In each case, the lower court had issued some sort of injunction that altered the status quo before the election election. The Chief intervened to restore the status quo.

Today in RNC v. Common Cause, the Chief declined to intervene, because an injunction would disturb the status quo. In this case, Rhode Island and civic groups reached a settlement that would waive the requirement to have absentee ballots signed in the presence of two witnesses or a notary. The district court approved that settlement. And that rule was in effect for the June election. The RNC challenged the agreement, and lost in the lower court. The RNC then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The order is a single paragraph:

The application for stay presented to Justice Breyer and by him referred to the Court is denied. Unlike Merrill v. People First of Alabama, 591 U. S. ___ (2020), and other similar cases where a State defends its own law, here the state election officials support the challenged decree, and no state official has expressed opposition. Under these circumstances, the applicants lack a cognizable interest in the State's ability to "enforce its duly enacted" laws. Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. ___, ___ n. 17 (2018). The status quo is one in which the challenged requirement has not been in effect, given the rules used in Rhode Island's last election, and many Rhode Island voters may well hold that belief.

The phrasing is a bit strange. The waived requirement (eliminating the need for two witnesses) was in effect for the June election. The "challenged requirement" (which required witnesses) was not in effect in June. Therefore, to keep the waived requirement in place is to maintain the status quo.

SCOTUSBlog provides some background:

The justices on Thursday morning turned down the Republicans' request. Although the Supreme Court rarely provides an explanation for its rulings in emergency appeals, the order denying the Republicans' request noted that this case was different from the Alabama case "and other similar cases where a State defends its own law" because the Rhode Island election officials supported the consent decree waiving the witness requirement, and no other state official had opposed it. Moreover, the court added, because the state had waived the witness requirement in its June election, that is the status quo, "and many Rhode Island voters may well hold that belief." Although brief, the court's explanation may have been intended not only to outline its reasoning in this case, but also to provide some guidance for lower courts in the election-law cases that are certain to come over the next few months.

This order is consistent with Jon Adler's observations about the Chief and injunctions: always maintain the status quo.

Going forward, if blue states and progressive civic groups reach favorable consent decrees, the Chief will not intervene.

Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. Justice Kavanaugh did not join the dissenters. Had he done so, it would have been obvious who was in the majority. Perhaps Justice Kavanaugh agrees with the Chief. Who knows?

Advertisement

NEXT: New Biotech Photosynthesis Hacks Would Boost Crop Yields by 50 Percent or More

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So Blue States stuff the ballot boxes, Trump wins via Electoral Collehe with *way* fewer votes than Biden, and then the Dems scream illegitimacy.

    Massachusetts is having a real problem with people getting BOTH an absentee ballot *and* a mail-in ballot. TWO ballots.

    1. I mean, you’re already screaming illegitimacy in this very comment so…

    2. They have been since 2016, and doing much more than screaming illegitimate. a Trump 2020 win will have them doing much worse.

      1. No one says Trump won illegitimately, just that he is an awful President.

        1. There are plenty of people who say that Trump won illegitimately, though they’re certainly not the only ones who think he’s an awful President.

          1. Huh.

            Do you recall under what justification? That the electoral college is fake law?

            Or is it just an emotional tantrum thing.

          2. No, those of us — including me — complaining about the results of 2016 aren’t claiming that he won illegitimately. We acknowledge that the electoral college is the law. Our complaint is that the law is unjust, since it deprives the majority of self governance. Oh, and also that he shouldn’t claim he has a mandate when he doesn’t. But none of that changes that under the law as it is, he was indeed elected president.

    3. Funny, I haven’t heard about that.

  2. You really need to see someone about your irrational hatred of the Chief Justice. It has started to color everything you write in a way that makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously any more.

    1. It’s not irrational hatred of the Chief Justice.

      It’s intense hatred of modernity, science, reason, progress, tolerance, and legitimate education. The Chief Justice is just something that gets in the way of the hard-right results Prof. Blackman craves — and, it appears, somehow actually expected.

  3. “Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.”

    Federalist Society-approved justices have demonstrated that they are reliable vote suppressors, just as the Republican Party and Federalist Society wished, predicted, and arranged.

  4. The RNC challenged the agreement,

    Of course they did.

  5. Post election chaos like never before is likely because posted ballots are prone to errors. We will likely not know who won for months.

  6. And what about Florida, where the state altered the status quo (as set forth by a voter-approved constitutional amendment), by imposing poll taxes, er, fine-and-fee requirements on ex-felons, and the Supreme Court chose to allow it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.