BREAKING: Supreme Court denies Republican requests to block mail-in voting expansion in Pennsylvania
The vote is 4-4.
Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas voted against the order.
Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas voted against the order.
There are no opinions.
The 4-4 tie results in a loss for Republicans because a majority is needed to grant a stay.
We have been waiting a long time for this order.
It seems the Court may have been split on the subject since the outset, and Chief Justice Roberts was unable to attract any of the four justices to his right to forge a majority.
It seems the Court may have been split on the subject since the outset, and Chief Justice Roberts was unable to attract any of the four justices to his right to forge a majority.
Extraordinary.
I would guess that the four dissenters have been drafting a biting dissent and the best CJ Roberts could do was to persuade them not to publish it.
I would guess that the four dissenters have been drafting a biting dissent and the best CJ Roberts could do was to persuade them not to publish it.
But we will not know the details on this for years, as the discussion takes place behind the scenes.
This denial came on the so-called "shadow docket" of emergency applications. It is a profoundly opaque corner of the Supreme Court's work that is increasingly consequential.
This denial came on the so-called "shadow docket" of emergency applications. It is a profoundly opaque corner of the Supreme Court's work that is increasingly consequential.
Pennsylvania is the state most likely to tip the 2020 presidential election.
This could prove to be CJ Roberts's most important aisle-crossing vote of his career—even alongside his twin votes to save the ACA and recent votes to strike down an abortion regulation & save DACA.
This could prove to be CJ Roberts's most important aisle-crossing vote of his career—even alongside his twin votes to save the ACA and recent votes to strike down an abortion regulation & save DACA.
KEY: the 4 dissenters (who must be fighting mad but held their tongue on why) would have told a state court that its interpretation of its state constitution was illegitimate.
That is profound judicial activism & bears no resemblance to the "federalism" conservatives espouse.
That is profound judicial activism & bears no resemblance to the "federalism" conservatives espouse.
p.s. @rickhasen and I predicted this outcome
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1314724108056305665?s=20
This 4-4 vote on a critical election-law lawsuit puts the pending confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett back in the spotlight: SCOTUS is on a knife's edge and the justices control many levers of America's democracy.
Could PA Republicans try again when Barrett joins the bench? Yes! Would they win? Maybe. @steve_vladeck thinks not, as the Purcell principle barring late-breaking changes to voting would spur voter confusion
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1318329901376851971?s=20
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1318356080188116992?s=21
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1318356080188116992
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
