 |
| RealityBites by Broc Smith |
Here’s what the Supreme Court’s order means for mail-in voting this year – Deseret News
"Democratic governors shared their anger online after the court’s order, with California’s Gavin Newsom vowing to sue again and keep pursuing the issue. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro posted that the decision does not deal with the substance of Trump’s order and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said despite the court’s decision, Trump doesn’t get to rewrite election law."
Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting | SCOTUSblog . . . "President Donald Trump signed the executive order at the center of the dispute in March. As it came to the court in late July, the focus of the case was on three different provisions of the order. The first instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of the adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election. The second provision commands the U.S. attorney general to “prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials … who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.” And the third provision requires states to give the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail ballots, and it prohibits the USPS from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of “enrolled” voters that the USPS will create.
"A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia challenged the government’s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts. They argued that the executive order conflicts with provisions in the Constitution that give states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding congressional elections." . . .
UPDATE: Will Supreme Court Ruling Make It Harder for Noncitizens to Vote?
. . . "However, in a separate case, the same judge who previously imposed an injunction on the order in a case brought by 23 states, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts, imposed a separate injunction on the USPS rule in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations.
"That judgment is likely a formality, Palmer said, since the Justice Department filed a motion with Talwani to drop the injunction in light of the high court ruling, or the ruling will be appealed.
"Though it was a decision on standing rather than the merits of the executive order, that is still significant in curbing what plaintiffs can do, and what national policy district court judges can block, said election lawyer Cleta Mitchell, chairman of the Election Integrity Network at the Conservative Partnership Institute.
“'I obviously wish the Supreme Court had stepped up and stopped the challenge in its tracks,” Mitchell told the Daily Signal. “It may have been necessary to rule on standing to get the votes. At some point, the Supreme Court should step in with the tyrants in black robes and let them know they are not the president, they are not the legislature, and they are not the state election board.”
No comments:
Post a Comment