The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
One week away from Justice Barrett's (likely) confirmation, the Court 4-4's an appeal from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The application for a stay was filed on 9/28, and the briefing completed on 10/6. 13 days later, the Court was unable to break a deadlock.
On September 28, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania filed an emergency application for a stay of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. Circuit Justice Alito called for a response on October 5. And Pennsylvania filed a reply on October 6. That application had been pending for 13 days. This evening, the Court finally resolved the case with a 4-4 tie. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would have granted the application. By process of eliminations, we know that the temporary Roberts-four would have denied the application: Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
My speculation: the Chief tried, mightily, to bring over another Justices to the majority. For nearly two weeks, the application was held up to see if there was a possible compromise. But none was to be had. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were resolute, and did not waver. As a result, the Court simply issued a two sentence order, without any published dissents.
The Court could have waited about a week until Justices Barrett was confirmed. (If all goes to Mitch's plan, ACB will be confirmed by Monday, October 26.) Imagine if this case was her first vote as a Supreme Court justice. But the Court prudently, in my mind, did not hold the case till a 9th Justice was confirmed. That move would have been transparent. Instead, the Court let the lower-court ruling stand. And, in the absence of any dissents or concurrences, the questions presented remain unresolved.
If this split is a preview of things to come, Justice Barrett very well may the tie-breaking vote in every election dispute, assuming she is not recused.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I guess we know where Roberts sits
Yes, I know....
Sure. Roberts is a lib and Shelby never happened.
In a 5-4 vote, any of the 5 could have switched; no single vote is the deciding one.
In a 4-4 vote, any of the 8 could have switched. Again, no single vote blocked it.
It's a poor decision by Roberts.
Roberts should've relied on federal law here that sets election day at November 3rd. If he'd used this judgement, it would've resolved the issue in PA now.
Instead, come November 4th, whichever party is leading in PA will instantly sue in federal court to prevent any new ballots that are cast on November 4th and later from being counted.
? This was a decision by a PA court about the PA constitution. Under current law, the federal government doesn't administer federal elections.
No one is talking about votes cast after Nov. 3
I’m sure I’m wrong somehow, but the us constitution leaves it to the state legislatures, not the state courts to set the manner of the election, doesn’t it?
The manner of the election yes, but not the date. The date is set by federal law.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved the Secretary of State's request to address delays due to recent postal service changes that could result in ballots not reaching election officials as quickly as they have in the past.
This power dynamic is presumable set forth in the state constitution and is the law of the land put forth by the legislature as well.
"‘ There is no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly,’ the court’s majority admits. To overturn it, they cite a line in Pennsylvania’s constitution: ‘Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.’ How does that language empower judges to ignore the ballot deadline?"
Exigency.
Reasonable minds may differ on that, but you are not arguing the court's actions are wrong, you are arguing illegitimate and bad faith.
You are nowhere near meeting that burden.
It's bad faith. They overruled explicit legislative protections with vague illusions to "freedom."
Every time a court strikes a statute for being unconstitutional, they overrule the legislatures.
"How does that language empower judges to ignore the ballot deadline?”
"
They have the crazy idea that you have to count all the votes to know who won an election.
Even the ones that weren't lawfully cast.
Assuming, of course, you can get a judge somewhere to rule that they weren't "lawfully cast".
They have the crazy idea that you have to count all the votes to know who won an election.
No matter how long after the actual election they were cast?
If you have a time machine that will let you cast ballots after the election and still postmark them on election day, there are some bigger problems to fix.
The sec of state isn’t the legislature. How do they have standing?
And there is existing precedent that, when the federal Constitution gives a power to the state legislature, it really does mean the state "legislature", not the state as a whole. And the Federal courts are free to decide that the state courts have violated the intent of the legislature.
Yeah. I don't like Bush v. Palm Beach County very much, but it happened and it was unanimous.
Sarcastro, your position was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court 20 years ago in Bush v. Palm Beach County. The Court held that (1) it had the power to review state Supreme Court decisions on presidential elections and (2) because of the word "Legislature" in the Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court could not use its state constitution in construing election law.
Read and weep...late votes will come in and there will be no way to separate the late votes from the timely votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas
" come November 4th, whichever party is leading in PA will instantly sue in federal court to prevent any new ballots that are cast on November 4th and later from being counted."
Except the R's were demanding permission to not count ballots that were unambiguously cast on or before November 3. Where'd they get this "pick a winner and then count the votes" mentality from, anyway?
I hope Roberts gets COVID and that his daughter gets ovarian cancer and he has to bury her.
" I hope Roberts gets COVID and that his daughter gets ovarian cancer and he has to bury her. "
Some readers may wonder whether the Volokh Conspiracy Board of Censors might remove or edit this one . . . but this incivility was directed at Chief Justice Roberts, rather than at a true movement conservative, so Prof. Volokh will let this one slide.
How many over-the-top, "right-wing" BS accounts do you have?
besides you?
Holy shit, aktenberg, look at what politics has done to your humanity.
You need to step away from the keyboard for a bit and see if it’ll pass.
He's a piece of shit.
Whereas you are pure, driven snow.
I hope Roberts gets COVID and that his daughter gets ovarian cancer and he has to bury her.
How diseased must your mind be to see those words on the screen and not know you have to be broken to send them into the world? Whatever remains of your soul is burning in your own digestive fluids. It may be too late but get help.
@Aktenberg78
Though I don't believe this account is real, this kind of stupid shit is still too far. Time to unplug.
"I hope Roberts gets COVID and that his daughter gets ovarian cancer and he has to bury her."
Warm thoughts to you, as well.
If Barrett would be the deciding vote, wouldn’t Roberts go along to make it 6-3, so that she wouldn’t be seen as the deciding vote? I mean, if he’s concerned about the court’s image rather than simply on the other side on the merits.
He might. I suspect we'll find out.
So if ACB is recused, a lower court judge and circuit will decide the election? Super, that'll really be a wonderful legacy of the Roberts Court, right up there with Obamacare.
"if ACB is recused, a lower court judge and circuit will decide the election?"
In the sense that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is only the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, sure.
Could they renew the stay request once ACB is confirmed.
And then again early next year, after four additional Justices join the Court?
THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
This white, male, conservative
blog has operated for
101 DAYS
without using a vile
racial slur and for
542 DAYS
without engaging in partisan,
viewpoint-controlled censorship
Which puts it way ahead of any prominent person of the left.
And you.
Is Arthur censoring someone?
Isn't this a State issue? The feds should be staying out of it. If there is corruption the people will handle it at the ballot box or in the streets...
In the end it will likely not matter, the number of questioned votes will likely not affect the outcome. If it does additional litigation will ensue.
Fat lot of good litigation will do once they take the illegally late ballots and mix them with the rest. Which they ARE going to do, count on it.
I suppose it is theoretically possible to mark the ballots from the late envelopes, or somehow segregate them so that they can be pulled from a recount. But if this happens in a county that has mostly Dem elected officials and government staff filled with Dem operatives, that is unlikely.
You think election officials putting marks on ballots would be okay?
Different bins would be fine. What wouldn't be fine is just mixing them together to make it impossible to comply with a court order requiring that only the lawfully cast ballots be counted.
Assuming you can get a judge or five to rule that votes cast for Democrats are prima facie illegal.
So why didn't this follow the Wisconsin precedent?
Is there a way for mail in ballots to systematically avoid a postmark?
I observe that USPS has gotten rather inconsistent with postmarking.
Different Courts.... The Wisconsin case went the federal route the Pennsylvania case was done through state courts and was using its own constitution to decide the case.
"Is there a way for mail in ballots to systematically avoid a postmark?"
Being hand delivered to the elections office or to the (real) official ballot collection box.
I'm confused with this ruling. The Pennsylvania court decided this case under their own state constitution "using adequate and independent state grounds". It worries me that 4 conservatives were so willing to overturn a State Supreme Court that used their own constitution to decide the case.
Well, the story goes, conservatives don't like judges "legislating from the bench". unless, of course, they're the ones doing it.