Thread by @rickhasen

So I think the Supreme Court performed pretty well during the pandemic, scheduling remote oral arguments with live audio and getting the most important cases out only a week late. But there's one big exception: #SCOTUS has been terrible on voting rights during the pandemic. /1

Beginning with a case out of Wisconsin, #SCOTUS has divided 5-4 over lower court orders meant to make it easier for voters to vote and participate in the political process safely during the pandemic. /2

#SCOTUS not only has NOT put a thumb on the scale favoring voters--as it should--during a pandemic; it has allowed voters to be disenfranchised (Wisconsin) or risk their health (Texas) in order to be able to vote. /3

When lower courts said voters should have the option to vote curbside in Alabama counties, the Supreme Court stepped in to stop it. /4

And now #SCOTUS is called upon to decide whether 750,000 Floridian former felons who had their voting rights restored through a lopsided voter initiative only to have the legislature stymie them will get to vote in Nov. I'm not optimistic. /5

John Roberts may be a (strategic) swing vote in many cases, but not when it comes to voting rights. In those cases he's a solid 5th vote (with other conservatives) against expanded voting rights even during a pandemic. It makes me worry about the fall. 6/6

P.S. I should add that #SCOTUS Justices got to decide these voting cases in the comfort of their own homes or country clubs, while voters in Milwaukee and Houston had to stand in long lines in the midst of a pandemic and risk their health to not be disenfranchised.

More about what we need to do about voting rights during the pandemic and beyond in this @nytimes @NYTimesOpEd piece:
nytimes.com/2020/06/29/opi…

and if you want the academic version of the argument, see Three Pathologies of American Voting Rights Illuminated by the COVID-19 Pandemic, and How to Treat and Cure Them;
Election Law Journal, 2020, Forthcoming
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…