Trump’s tweet goes to the heart of the political and legal case he’s made all year. But there are problems with his argument: that is to say, he goes against every election in American history, has no legal basis, and is part of his campaign of political disinformation about electoral security that is contradictory. by key federal security election officials.
There is nothing wrong with “imagining”. Count the polls after election day happens in literally every national election. Every vote was never counted on election night. The “results” that are typically heard on that night are actually media forecasts with zero legal weight. Officially certified results do not come for days or weeks when all polls are counted.
It is the scrutiny account that is at issue in the Supreme Court. In the wake of a worsening pandemic, a record-breaking mail vote, and the U.S. Postal Service falling under a recent Trump donor, some states have tried to address the issues by lengthening the time for valid polls to be counted. .
Democrats and liberals of the court have upheld the voting rules developed in the hope of adapting to this unprecedented electoral challenge. Meanwhile, Republicans and court conservatives are generally opposed to rule changes enacted by state legislatures even when they are pushed by state election officials.
Decisions so far
This is how the Supreme Court has ruled in recent cases defining the 2020 elections.
Pennsylvania, October 20: Last week, Republicans lost a state battle swing over Pennsylvania. The state Supreme Court had ruled that postal ballots could be received three days after election day, based on the postal service saying delivery delays risk privilege across the state. Who made the decision is a key issue here: If extensions come from the states, they tend to succeed in the Supreme Court; if they come from the federal government, they fail.
Alabama, October 22: A ban on curbside voting status – that is, disabled people driving to a polling place and leaving ballots – has been allowed to stand before the U.S. Supreme Court. The ban originally came from the Alabama Secretary of State, who was in dispute with a federal court over the ban violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The state has won over dissent from Liberals in the Supreme Court.
Wisconsin, October 26: As we recently announced, the Supreme Court refused to extend the deadline for the counting of votes by mail in Wisconsin, a victory for Republicans who have taken up the legal challenge. This particular extension order was originally brought by a federal judge in September, a crucial point that all court conservatives have agreed to: federal courts should not micromanage state elections.
Pennsylvania, October 28: The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a Republican request to expedite a review of mailing terms in Pennsylvania – the case it had decided the previous week. But the question didn’t go away definitively: Conservative judges have left the door open to the possibility of revisiting the case after the election, and Pennsylvania officials segregate the ballots received after election day in the case of such a legal battle. If the vote is close in Pennsylvania, you can bet that this will raise your head once more.
North Carolina, October 29: Democrats won a similar case a few days later in a 5-3 decision, with Judge Chief Roberts joining more liberal judges allowing North Carolina to receive and count votes for up to nine days. after election day. This extension, from three days to nine days, comes from the State Election Council. This, for Roberts, made a difference.
The near future
“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” Trump predicted last month.
Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in any of the five major voting decisions, but she is confident she will be involved in the future, and will play a role in any legal dispute after election day. President Trump has made it clear that this is where he sees the fight after the polls close.