Supreme Court decision to hold off reviewing Pennsylvania election case could impact legal strategy

Supreme Court decision to hold off reviewing Pennsylvania election case could impact legal strategy

미국. 대법원 ruled that if it ends up reviewing a 펜실베니아 Supreme Court decision to allow the receipt of ballots after Election Day, it will not be until after Nov. 3, effectively eliminating one factor of the Republicans’ case.

펜실베니아 GOP의 대법원에 대한 검토 청원에서, 당은 펜실베니아 대법원이 주가 선거를 처리하는 방식을 변경하기로 결정했을 때, 유권자들을 혼동시킬 위험이 있습니다.. 그 주장은 Purcell 원칙으로 알려져 있습니다, 2006 년 Purcell v. 곤잘레스.

SCOTUS WON’T FAST-TRACK APPEAL OVER BLOCKING EXTENDED DEADLINE FOR PA MAIL-IN BALLOTS

“Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase,” the court said in Purcell.

In their petition, Republicans cited Purcell, saying that “it is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority’s last-minute upsetting of the rules established by the General Assembly that threatens public ‘[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral processes’ on the eve of a historic general election.”

Incidentally, Democrats also cited Purcell by claiming that overturning the state court’s ruling so close to the election would cause confusion.

John Hansberry, with the Philadelphia City Commissioners office, demonstrates an extraction machine at the city's mail-in ballot sorting and counting center in preparation for the 2020 General Election in the United States, 월요일, 10 월. 26, 2020, 필라델피아. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)

John Hansberry, with the Philadelphia City Commissioners office, demonstrates an extraction machine at the city’s mail-in ballot sorting and counting center in preparation for the 2020 General Election in the United States, 월요일, 10 월. 26, 2020, 필라델피아. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)

Brett Kavanaugh 판사는 대법원이 부재자 투표에 대한 사우스 캐롤라이나 증인 요건을 복원하기로 결정했을 때 동의하는 의견으로 Purcell을 사용했습니다.. Kavanaugh는 연방 법원이 일반적으로“선거에 가까운 기간 동안 주 선거 규칙을 변경해서는 안된다”는 선례를 인용했습니다.

SUPREME COURT COULD STILL OVERTURN PENNSYLVANIA MAIL-IN BALLOT DEADLINE EXTENSION AFTER ELECTION

Since voters will have already cast their ballots by the time the court weighs in — if it opts to weigh in at all — Republicans may have to rely on other arguments. They do have options, as their petition showed.

One argument is that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should not be allowed to change the state’s election rules, regardless of timing. The state GOP claimed that because the Constitution says that it is up to state legislatures—not the courtsto determine the manner in which they appoint their presidential electors, as well as the “Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.”

Another argument is that federal statutes set out the time for “a single nationwide federal Election Day,” and that states “cannot create a process under which ballots cast or mailed after Election Day can be considered timely.”

While pushing the matter off until after the election may have made the Purcell argument moot, Ilya Shapiro, 로버트 A 감독. Cato Institute의 헌법 연구 레비 센터, speculated that Chief Justice John Roberts is hoping the whole case will be made moot if the election’s outcome does not rely on Pennsylvania.

FOX 뉴스 앱을 받으려면 여기를 클릭하십시오.

“Chief Justice John Roberts, who always prefers to kick controversial cans down the road, is clearly hoping that Pennsylvania isn’t the deciding state in the presidential election,” Shapiro told Fox News.

Should Pennsylvania be the deciding factor, Shapiro noted, “all bets are off” because the court’s recent rulings against the Republicans would not necessarily be indicative of how they would ultimately decide the case.

답장을 남겨주세요

귀하의 이메일 주소는 공개되지 않습니다. 필요 입력 사항은 표시되어 있습니다 *

*