Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to count ballots received up to 3 days after Election Day

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

signit

New member
article
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that absentee ballots in Pennsylvania can be received up to three days beyond Election Day, setting a precedent that could apply to some other states as well.

A shorthanded court, functioning with only eight members since the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, split 4-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts joined liberal Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan while conservative Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh formed the opposing bloc.

[edit]

“This is an open invitation to voters to cast their ballots after Election Day, thereby injecting chaos and the potential for gamesmanship into what was an orderly and secure schedule of clear, bright-line deadlines,” Jason Torchinsky, the lawyer for state Senate leaders, said in court papers.

“In a year where there is a very real possibility that the final presidential election result hinges on Pennsylvania, the new rules imposed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (a body elected in partisan elections) could destroy the American public’s confidence in the electoral system as a whole,” he wrote.
Click to expand...
 
I guess you don’t need a ninth person. The tie goes to the Chief Justice side. IE the tie goes to the runner in baseball.
 
From curiosity, I might read the dissenting opinions. Why wouldn’t one want to have the votes count?
 
No - that’s not how it works.

In the event of a tie the lower court’s decision holds.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
From curiosity, I might read the dissenting opinions. Why wouldn’t one want to have the votes count?
Click to expand...
The answer to that question may reveal different motivations than whatever legal technicalities are at issue…
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Why wouldn’t one want to have the votes count?
Click to expand...
Exactly. And why only three days? They were counting absentee votes well into December back in 2016. Trump of course didn’t like it because most of the votes were against him.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
Exactly. And why only three days? They were counting absentee votes well into December back in 2016. Trump of course didn’t like it because most of the votes were against him.
Click to expand...
Missing the point. The ruling allows absentee ballots to be received up to 3 days past the election. Counting will take longer depending on the work force available.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
From curiosity, I might read the dissenting opinions. Why wouldn’t one want to have the votes count?
Click to expand...
(1) No opinions, just this, an order stating that the application for stay was denied and that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would grant the application:

order

(2)

The original Pennsylvania court opinion:

opinion

From the conclusion:
a three-day extension of the absentee and mail-in ballot received-by deadline is adopted such that ballots mailed by voters via the United States Postal Service and postmarked by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day , November 3, 2020, shall be counted if they are otherwise valid and received by the county boards of election on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020; ballots received within this period that lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible, will be presumed to have been > mailed by Election Day unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day
Click to expand...
This seems to be the counterargument, from a later opinion:

opinion
In Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, ___ A.3d ___, 2020 WL 5554644 (Pa. 2020), a majority of this Court held that all mail-in ballots postmarked by 8:00 on Election Day, and received by 5:00 p.m. November 6, 2020, even those lacking a postmark or bearing an illegible postmark, would be counted. Id. at *37. Without further explanation, the majority qualified that such ballots “will be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.” Id. The Republican Party of Pennsylvania Intervenors argue that virtually no evidence exists to overcome such a presumption, and “the Court’s presumption opens the door to illegally and untimely cast or mailed ballots being counted in, and tainting the results of, the imminent general election in which millions of Pennsylvanians will exercise their right to vote.” Republican Party of Pennsylvania Application for Partial Stay at 4.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RidgeSprinter said:
I guess you don’t need a ninth person. The tie goes to the Chief Justice side. IE the tie goes to the runner in baseball.
Click to expand...
you clearly have no clue how a “tie” with the supreme court is handled and clearly did not read the article since it was stated in the third paragraph. (the first and third “paragraphs” being only one sentence each.)
 
Xystus said:
you clearly have no clue how a “tie” with the supreme court is handled and clearly did not read the article since it was stated in the third paragraph. (the first and third “paragraphs” being only one sentence each.)
Click to expand...
It has already been answered by super lawyer. You are a dollar short and a day late.
SuperLawyer said:
No - that’s not how it works.

In the event of a tie the lower court’s decision holds.
Click to expand...
 
The shortcoming is your lack of basic understanding of how the court works.
 
Xystus said:
The shortcoming is your lack of basic understanding of how the court works.
Click to expand...
I had already been corrected before you replied. That makes you a dollar short and a day late.
 
Last edited:
The issue was whether the PA supreme court’s order that late ballots be counted could be ‘stayed’, i.e. not allowed. Republicans, who sued, did not want all those ballots counted and made an emergency request to SCOTUS.

"Neither side explained its reasoning, which often is the case with emergency requests. But the outcome underscored the decisive role Barrett could play if she is confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate — with a vote there expected as soon as next week. Trump has said he wants his nominee on the court in case it is split on litigation arising from the election.

That, in turn, has prompted calls from Democrats that Barrett pledge to recuse herself from election cases. She declined to say at her confirmation hearings last week what she would do so if faced with such a decision.

The Supreme Court had considered the Republican request for nearly two weeks, indicating that an attempt at compromise might have failed." (emphasis added)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d106a6-08a6-11eb-a166-dc429b380d10_story.html
 
This was decided along party lines with John Roberts siding with the liberal judges.
 
Jeanne_S said:
This was decided along party lines with John Roberts siding with the liberal judges.
Click to expand...
Ask the resident lawyers if they believe that refusing to hear an application for an emergency stay is deciding a case.
 
No decision at all was made - there is no precedential effect to denying an emergency stay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top