Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court's opinion, allowing the challenge to “Illinois’s procedure for counting mail-in ballots received after election day" to proceed.
John Roberts' (very) superficially clever attempt to support his argument by a comparison to a foot race instead reveals its hidden and fundamental weakness. It's like, in an old saying, a house built on a foundation of stubble and straw.
No one to my knowledge is talking about changing the length of the election campaign in the middle of it. No one is suggesting changing the date of an election, which is what would be the equivalent of extending a 100m race to 105m while the race is going on.
What's involved, rather, is counting mail-in ballots arriving after election day. That is, after the race is over. Every entrant knew the rules going in, knew the dates, knew what they had to do in what time frame, a time frame that ended on election day. Whatever the number of days allowed for mail-in ballots to arrive, they must have been posted, that is, cast, by then.
Which reveals the underlying failure of Roberts' analogy: He is equating when a vote is counted with when it was cast. Which is both nonsense and contrary to previous decisions.
Even if the allowed days for mail-in ballots to be received was extended during the campaign, it does not change the fact that those votes - pardon the all caps but this needs emphasis - MUST HAVE BEEN CAST BY ELECTION DAY - so there is no demonstrable harm to any particular candidate and no cause of action.
So unless Roberts is claiming both that all mail-in ballots must be received before election day and that all counting of votes must stop at midnight (otherwise they would be counted after election day and so invalid), his argument is - well I started to say vapor, but it does have substance in its impact: It empowers those with the contacts and cash to pursue suits to push he courts to embrace election rules tailored to their own selfish advantage.
But since Roberts hasn't shown a lot of interest in fair elections - consider his gradual dismantling of the Voting Rights Act - I doubt he cares.
Excellent comment, Larry. Roberts' analogy is absolutely ridiculous. Just like his "balls and strikes." Roberts and his fellow judicial insurrectionists, in fact, continues to narrow the ERA strike zone.
I think my favorite dumb Roberts' aphorism was when he justified smacking down affirmative action by saying (as best as I can quote from memory) "The best way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race," which I likened to saying "The best way to get from point A to Point B is to pretend you're already there."
As for "balls and strikes," that wasn't just ridiculous, it was a flaming lie. But I did enjoy your bringing in the narrowed strike zone image. :-)
So we all need to be candidates to maintain our voting rights?
Whatever Roberts does just ends up making things a worse mess.
But pleases his master.
Can candidates challenge the very existence of mail-in ballots?
John Roberts' (very) superficially clever attempt to support his argument by a comparison to a foot race instead reveals its hidden and fundamental weakness. It's like, in an old saying, a house built on a foundation of stubble and straw.
No one to my knowledge is talking about changing the length of the election campaign in the middle of it. No one is suggesting changing the date of an election, which is what would be the equivalent of extending a 100m race to 105m while the race is going on.
What's involved, rather, is counting mail-in ballots arriving after election day. That is, after the race is over. Every entrant knew the rules going in, knew the dates, knew what they had to do in what time frame, a time frame that ended on election day. Whatever the number of days allowed for mail-in ballots to arrive, they must have been posted, that is, cast, by then.
Which reveals the underlying failure of Roberts' analogy: He is equating when a vote is counted with when it was cast. Which is both nonsense and contrary to previous decisions.
Even if the allowed days for mail-in ballots to be received was extended during the campaign, it does not change the fact that those votes - pardon the all caps but this needs emphasis - MUST HAVE BEEN CAST BY ELECTION DAY - so there is no demonstrable harm to any particular candidate and no cause of action.
So unless Roberts is claiming both that all mail-in ballots must be received before election day and that all counting of votes must stop at midnight (otherwise they would be counted after election day and so invalid), his argument is - well I started to say vapor, but it does have substance in its impact: It empowers those with the contacts and cash to pursue suits to push he courts to embrace election rules tailored to their own selfish advantage.
But since Roberts hasn't shown a lot of interest in fair elections - consider his gradual dismantling of the Voting Rights Act - I doubt he cares.
Excellent comment, Larry. Roberts' analogy is absolutely ridiculous. Just like his "balls and strikes." Roberts and his fellow judicial insurrectionists, in fact, continues to narrow the ERA strike zone.
Thanks. Truly appreciated.
I think my favorite dumb Roberts' aphorism was when he justified smacking down affirmative action by saying (as best as I can quote from memory) "The best way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race," which I likened to saying "The best way to get from point A to Point B is to pretend you're already there."
As for "balls and strikes," that wasn't just ridiculous, it was a flaming lie. But I did enjoy your bringing in the narrowed strike zone image. :-)
Taking down our democracy one ruling at a time
Oh, laws are just so complicated! Best let the political elite decide what’s best … for them.
Who do I call
Want to bet whether this Supreme Court majority will hold that voters are entitled to a similar presumption of standing?