The Supreme Court decides not to toss out thousands of Pennsylvania ballots

You May Be Interested In:Who killed JonBenét Ramsey? Everything we know about the main suspects.


On Friday evening, the Supreme Court ruled it would leave in place a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that made it marginally easier for certain voters in the state to cast a ballot. The Republican Party had asked the justices to block that decision; doing so would have likely disenfranchised thousands of voters.

But that won’t happen. The Court’s decision in Republican National Committee v. Genser was unanimous, although Justice Samuel Alito wrote a statement indicating that he and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are only ruling against the GOP on narrow procedural grounds.

The problem at the heart of the case was that Pennsylvania law is unusually strict regarding how mailed ballots must be returned by voters. They must be stuffed in two envelopes, and if the inner envelope is missing, the ballot is void. The state supreme court decision at issue in Genser ruled that voters who cast such a voided ballot can still vote if they show up on Election Day and cast a provisional ballot.

A win for the GOP could have scrambled future elections, too. The GOP’s legal arguments relied on a radical theory known as the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which the Supreme Court has rejected many times, but which all but one of the Court’s Republican members have expressed sympathy toward in the past.

So the Court was asked to play with some very dangerous magic in Genser and, to their credit, all nine justices refused this request.

The decision should also give a small degree of comfort to Democrats, who’ve had good reason to wonder if this Court — which has a 6-3 Republican majority — can be trusted to referee a close election after its Trump v. United States immunity decision, in which the justices declared Trump was allowed to commit many crimes as president. At the very least, Genser is a sign that this Court won’t embrace literally any legal theory put forth by the Republican Party.

share Paylaş facebook pinterest whatsapp x print

Similar Content

«C'est terrifiant»: une Québécoise de 33 ans craint de devoir quitter le pays si Trump reprend le pouvoir
«C’est terrifiant»: une Québécoise de 33 ans craint de devoir quitter le pays si Trump reprend le pouvoir
Nintendo Alarmo
Nintendo’s fun new alarm clock helps you wake up, fall asleep, and more
Pneus d’hiver obligatoires au Québec: les automobilistes sous pression face à la date limite
Pneus d’hiver obligatoires au Québec: les automobilistes sous pression face à la date limite
MS Project 2021
One tool, endless diagramming possibilities for $17.97
How common are back-to-back hurricanes? A climatologist answers.
How common are back-to-back hurricanes? A climatologist answers.
«Marc Dupré: à la croisée des chemins»: le chanteur se confie dans un nouveau documentaire sur sa vie
«Marc Dupré: à la croisée des chemins»: le chanteur se confie dans un nouveau documentaire sur sa vie
The News Frontier | © 2024 | News