Thread by @bradheath

A few amici have filed at the Supreme Court today in support of a case seeking to declare that Pennsylvania's mail-in voting scheme violates the state constitution, thereby throwing out the votes of millions of people who voted absentee.

They're ... interesting.

The docket is here: supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…

Pennsylvania's response arguing against enjoining its entire election is due to Justice Alito tomorrow.

The PA Republican Party makes the curious argument that the PA Supreme Court's decision was wrong because it failed to follow it's own precedents. State supreme courts are, of course, free to overrule their precedents, just as the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes does.

Remember the issue here: PA expanded its mail voting system in 2019; the Republican legislature overwhelmingly approved this. More than a year and two elections later, a Congressman said this whole thing has to be thrown out and the votes discounted. PA said he waited too long.

Republicans argue laches - the doctrine that you waited too long - can't bar a suit over voting because it's a fundamental right. It doesn't cite a case or any authority for this, and doesn't explain how expanding voting burdens the right to vote.
supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…

Next, various members of Congress, including @mattgaetz, @SteveKingIA and @replouiegohmert, lament "the increasing stridency and polarization that plague our processes." They have, they say, been "firsthand witnesses" to this disturbing political trend.

Fact-check that one all you want.

The various Republican Congressmen argue that if PA's mail-in voting system violates the state Constitution, it also violates the federal one because it's a presidential election and therefore the Supreme Court can, nay must, review everything.

The various Republican Congressmen - having just lamented partisan stridency - blame Democrats for the "wrong" (mail-in voting) in Pennsylvania. It was, however, overwhelmingly approved by state's legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, who basically all supported it.

The argument here -- that PA's Supreme Court has a duty to strike the legislative enactment because it relates to presidential elections -- basically seems irreconcilable with the other PA case, in which Republicans argue state courts can't do that for the same reason.

Next, various Republicans in the PA General Assembly urge the Supreme Court to grant an injunction blocking the results of a mail-in voting system that they themselves created, at least until the PA Supreme Court is forced to decide whether that system complied with state law.

The case is over whether PA's mail-in voting scheme violated the state Constitution. But the GOP state legislators go on to argue that they actually enacted it via their authority under the federal Constitution, which blows up the argument they're trying to support? So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They go on to complain about various other PA Supreme Court voting decisions they disagree with, which they say mean this case couldn't have been brought any earlier, even though those have nothing at all to do with whether mail-in voting is constitutional in PA.

Points to you if you can follow this line of argument.

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…

There's one amicus brief on the other side, from @GovCTW and some old-school ex-DOJ types. It, uhh, more closely resembles the type of briefing one normally finds in the Supreme Court. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…

This brief is speaking the language of the courts' conservatives.

ok to be clear, this ☝️ is from a different brief, in *opposition* to the request to block PA's election results and it is not at all hard to understand. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…

Here's the bottom line: There are already a bunch of federal challenges pending to state election law, and if the Supreme Court takes this case, it's going to find itself in the middle of basically every state election dispute from now until forever.