It has become a talking point on the right that Republicans are no longer asking the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify Pennsylvania ballots. That is false. Republicans told SCOTUS it *can* resolve this case without nullifying ballots, but would still prefer to have them nullified. 1/
https://twitter.com/tedfrank/status/1339209675036876802
Republicans face a problem in this case: Throwing out late-arriving ballots won't change the outcome of the election, so Pennsylvania says the dispute is moot.
Republicans' latest brief seeks to avoid this problem by presenting two distinct theories. 2/
Republicans' latest brief seeks to avoid this problem by presenting two distinct theories. 2/
Theory #1: Republicans say that the Supreme Court can still provide relief by nullifying late-arriving ballots, even though its actions won't change the outcome of the Pennsylvania election, because counting those ballots still illegally dilutes lawful votes. 3/ 
In other words, Republicans argue that SCOTUS should still throw out late-arriving ballots, even though it won't change the outcome of the election, to prevent the "dilution" of legal votes and preserve "the integrity of the vote count."
This is their primary argument. 4/
This is their primary argument. 4/
Theory #2: Republicans say the Supreme Court should still resolve the case even if it does not want to throw out any ballots. Why? To settle the law and provide clarity in future elections. Republicans invoke the "capable of repetition yet evading review" doctrine. 5/
Conservatives have seized upon this secondary argument to claim that Republicans do not want SCOTUS to nullify ballots. That is untrue. Republicans still want SCOTUS to nullify ballots—but assert, as a backup claim, that SCOTUS can still decide this case without doing so. 6/
Pennsylvania segregated late-arriving ballots, so it can void them and subtract them from the vote total if SCOTUS demands it. That is the relief Republicans prefer, and the primary theory they use to argue that the case is not moot. 7/
Again, *as a backup argument,* Pennsylvania Republicans also say SCOTUS can rule without voiding these ballots. But that is not their preferred remedy. And anyone telling you otherwise is misrepresenting the facts. 8/
In short, conservatives looking to defend Pennsylvania Republicans at the Supreme Court would sound more convincing if they simply argued that nullifying thousands of ballots is necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act.🤗
Read the brief here: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2… 9/9
Read the brief here: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2… 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
