Tweet

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1319097417405505536?s=20

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @stevenmazie

Steven Mazie

@stevenmazie

22 Oct

NEW at SCOTUS: yet another emergency request from the GOP to block pandemic-related voting accommodations. This time in North Carolina.

This request comes in a different posture from recent Republican requests, as it pits the GOP state legislature against the state board of elections, which entered into a consent judgement with advocacy groups pushing for the voting accommodations.

At issue: waived postmark and witness requirements and and an extended receipt deadline for mail-in ballots.

Republicans want all these erased.

Read 6 tweets

Steven Mazie

@stevenmazie

22 Oct

If you're wondering why CJ Roberts voted to reinstate the ban on curbside voting in Alabama tonight but voted to *permit* a voting accommodation in Pennsylvania on Monday...

The common denominator seems to be federalism: let the states run their elections as they choose.

Of course, it's a little more complicated than that.

In PA, SCOTUS refused to block a ruling from the state supreme court that extended (contrary to the legislature's wish) the deadline for mail-in ballots under the right-to-vote provision of the state constitution.

Read 5 tweets

Steven Mazie

@stevenmazie

21 Oct

Ratcliffe: Iran and Russia have taken specific actions to influence public opinion in America.

They have voter registration info.

Iran has sent spoof emails to intimidate voters and damage President Trump, Ratcliffe says.

Ratcliffe: you can be confident your votes are secure.

So far no clarification of how Iran's actions were intended to damage Trump, specifically. Puzzling.

Read 7 tweets

Steven Mazie

@stevenmazie

19 Oct

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.

There are no opinions.

Read 13 tweets

Steven Mazie

@stevenmazie

14 Oct

@SenBlumenthal

Barrett just told @SenBlumenthal that Loving v. Virginia (striking down mixed-race marriage bans) was based directly on Brown v. Board of Ed and was therefore correctly decided—but she can't opine on Griswold or Obergefell.

Her characterization of Loving is not quite right. 1/4

Brown v. Board was based *only* the Equal Protection Clause: the idea that separate schools are inherently unequal. The Court explicitly declined to consider whether segregation is also unconstitutional under substantive due process. 2/4

Loving, on the other hand, was based on *both* the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, with *more* analysis devoted to the latter. It is a substantive due-process case, much like Griswold (right to contraception) and Obergefell (marriage equality). 3/4

Read 5 tweets