If your party’s only clear animating principle for the closing days of an election is to reduce the number of people who can have their votes counted, it’s not a party at all.
These people are so desperate and sad. Their “arguments,” such as they are, require both ignoring the pandemic (which, true, is basically GOP policy anyway) AND ignoring the fact that even pre-pandemic many states allowed post-election day receipt of ballots postmarked by E-Day.
(Of course, to the extent arguments go even further and claim that the election *results* should be final on election night (cc: Kavanaugh, J.), that’s never been the case because counts of provisional ballots, etc, go past Election Day, sometimes as a requirement even.)
Republicans are afraid of votes. Some judges are, increasingly, going along with it — in dramatic and unjustified ways that ignore the Purcell principle and the reliance interests of voters. It’s undemocratic, an embarrassment to our nation, and needs to stop.
About these SCOTUS rulings. The bottom line is: Get your ballot in by Election Day if at all possible. Whether you have already mailed it, drop it off in person or at a dropbox where available, vote early in person, or vote on Election Day, that's what is safest.
It is clear that a majority of the Court is opposed to federal court election changes. It is also clear that at least four justices are open to rulings that would allow the US Supreme Court to overrule state courts' rulings on state law when it relates to federal elections.
That "at least four" represents Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. If Barrett were to join them, that's five — and even a Roberts vote with the more liberal justices wouldn't be enough to stop a ruling like Alito's opinion in the PA case sought out earlier today.
Here’s the NC ruling, in which #SCOTUS turned down a GOP request to halt an extension of the time for receipt of NC absentee ballots. Although some are characterizing the vote as 5-3, I’m not sure we know more than that a majority didn’t vote for relief. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
In other words, we know three justices — Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch — disagreed with denying relief, because they said so, but we don’t know the other votes because application votes aren’t public. So, it could have been 4-4 and that would still be a denial.
Steve makes an argument here for evidence that it was 5-3, but I’m not sure the tradition he describes applies to applications (as opposed to merits cases, where the Court notes there is “an equally divided Court”). That has specific consequences that don’t apply to applications.