U.S. Supreme Court takes a pass on fair elections

Invites merry-go-round rule changes in next election.

Is Justice Clarence Thomas the true successor of Justice Scalia? We excerpt from his dissent in the Supreme Court’s refusal today 02-22-21 to hear a challenge to the Presidential vote in Pennsylvania. It’s relevance to a similar challenge here in Wisconsin is unmistakable.

National Review is worth consulting:

The Court this morning turned away the remaining challenges to the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan [on the grounds that the election is over, therefore the issue is moot]. … none of them offered any legitimate grounds to change the outcome of the presidential election, but [can] state courts or state executive officials can use the general, open-ended terms of state constitutional provisions to throw out specific rules passed by state legislatures governing federal elections?

Justice Thomas:

The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Both before and after the 2020 election, non-legislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes.

The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence — such as a postmark — that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future.

Unclear rules … sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the integrity and fairness of elections. … We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election.

That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse.

“Voting by mail was traditionally limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent.” Thomas wrote. “In recent years, however, many States have become more permissive, a trend greatly accelerated by COVID–19.”

Mail-in ballots accounted for 38% of Pennsylvania’s total compared to 4% just two years earlier … “the risk of fraud vastly more prevalent.” Quoting a Yale Law School dean: “Absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system.” Justice Thomas:

When an official has improperly changed the rules, but voters have already relied on that change, courts must choose between potentially disenfranchising a subset of voters and enforcing the election provisions. …. That occurred last year. After a court wrongly altered South Carolina’s witness requirement for absentee ballots, this Court largely reinstated the original rule, but declined to apply it to ballots already cast.

Only Justices Alito and Gorsuch voted with Thomas to hear the case; Thomas needed a fourth to do so. Thomas went on to say that states have only five weeks to certify a Presidential election, all the more reason to hear the Pennsylvania case now.

Here, we have the opportunity to [adjudicate] almost two years before the next federal election cycle. Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling.

Are YOU befuddled?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Election 2020, election challenges. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to U.S. Supreme Court takes a pass on fair elections

  1. A Party of One says:

    If this is any indication, Biden does not need to consider packing the Court. He already has a Court that won’t vote against his plans.


  2. AdamC says:

    They aren’t going to pack the court, nor are they going to give statehood to DC or PR.

    Just like the $2,000 checks that were printed, signed, and ready to go out the door immediately after the Jan. 5 Georgia Senate elections, their openly dishonest promises were simply to shake up some votes and that is all.

    BLM is still waiting on that in-person meeting they thought for sure would’ve happened last November. They actually believed they would be crafting policy, getting plum Administration jobs, and giving matching orders to Hiden-Barris. They are as useful now as is the creepy slimy Lincoln Project.

    A lot of idle/idealistic young ‘uns are learning that no matter how much you bust your ass campaigning and cajoling votes they sell you down the river as they take that oath.


  3. Good Dog,Happy Man says:

    Good Dogs,

    February is Black History Month, but you’ll never see Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas honored by racialist black historians. Apparently he’s the wrong kind of black, … a Conservative.

    The eminent Clarence Thomas wrote in his eloquent dissent, ““These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable. The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, non legislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead.”

    In the Time Magazine piece, “The Shadow Campaign” Lefties bragged about it and admitted their efforts weren’t aimed at rigging the election, they were “fortifying” it.
    Po-TAY-Toe. Po-TAH-toe, … eidderwodderway the fix was in. Zhou “Basement” Bai-Din knew he didn’t have to campaign, … the fix was in.

    Even SCOTUS cannot bring themselves to have cooler heads prevail, calm down, “unify” America, restore the trust in our electoral systems and to have a fair and impartial judge.

    To whom, Lord, can WE, the People, the 75 million who voted for President Trump turn?


    Liked by 1 person

    • richard -lesiak says:

      “The Constitution gives each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. So; if non legislative officials take it upon themselves to change the rules it is up to the ELECTED officials to step in immediately. It also means that any legislature should not fix the rules along their own party lines. Any changes in Wisconsin would require Vos and Friends to show up for work and make them; but, they are in control so that isn’t going to happen.


    • Liberty says:

      “February is Black History Month, but you’ll never see Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas honored by racialist black historians. Apparently he’s the wrong kind of black, … a Conservative.”

      Indeed. Yet a cop killer gets glorified. What a crazy world.

      Have you ever seen “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas In His Own Words”?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Balboa says:

    They are now just called Socialists. I expect to see 100 percent voter participation going forward like in ole mother russia, china, cuba and venezuela and other despot nations.

    Serfdom is here, get to the back of the line Whitey CIS gendered males!!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Liberty says:

    “Are YOU befuddled?”

    Normally I would be, but it seems like Coney-Barrett and Kavanaugh are going out of their way to prove they don’t favor conservatives. But in doing, they have shown that they’re biased against conservatives.


  6. madisonexpat says:

    The Washington Party has been ascendant for quite a while. When no one did one day of jail time for the 2008 Short Sell Depression, not under Bush or Obama/Biden, nor during the Chicagoization of Washington (politicizing the IRS for example). Or for the coup d’etat when DOJ, FBI, CIA yada yada tried to overthrow our duly elected president.
    I fear the capitol of our country is going the way of our campuses… Hard Left, full speed ahead and damn the icebergs!


    • georgessson says:

      Good ending, MXPat: “Hard Left, full speed ahead and damn the icebergs!” I can’t remember just which white-Woke article spoke about the metaphorical “Iceberg” below systemic racism, et nauseum, but your comment dovetails nicely. In just a few days, I find I cannot keep up w/ all the articles/efforts made by US biz & news agencies to show us how deplorable we truly are. Maybe a new (possibly scandalous) early AM (again) Tiger Woods crash will divert MSM for a few days….


  7. Pingback: We’re not worshiping the golden calf | Blaska Policy Werkes

Comments are closed.