A Republican Party request that the Supreme Court block an agreement Rhode Island reached in court to expand absentee voting for the pandemic was a bridge too far for the conservative Court, which has otherwise sided against efforts to making voting easier in the emergency disputes that have reached it during the pandemic.
Great, let’s get similar loosening of stringent voting requirements in all 50 states.
Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samual Alito, and Justice Neil Gorsuch indicated in Thursday’s order they would have blocked the consent decree.
Clarence Thomas, Samual Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, Very Silly Party
h/t @ralph_vonholst
I’ll take the win on this one.
Kind of sinks us in Ohio, though. The Ohio General Assembly and SOS don’t want to expand access to the ballot box.
So fair voting laws are legal, if the State is acquiescing in the demands for them. But if a State is fighting them then fair voting laws are bad.
Seems legit.
Small victory, but still good to see.
Still, go ahead and vote in-person, Trump is going to do all he cans to make sure you do not receive your ballot on time.
these fugging people
This is a surprise but a good one. I keep reading that Roberts would do anything to suppress voting rights. Those other Cons…pffft!
My takeaway: Blue states governments can agree to expand voter access; red and purple states that do not want to expand voter access cannot be made to.
I hear you, there are plenty of red states with the same attitude about access to voting. I’m sure you’ll be voting, though - it’s the people less politically in tune that’ll just blow it off because of republikkkan placed impediments.
I take heart in the determination of Wisconsin primary voters earlier this year and hope that same courage and determination is demonstrated in every state for the upcoming election.
I live in NM and shouldn’t face the obstacles to casting a ballot during a pandemic that so many others will be dealing with. I plan to vote early and absentee, but will be taking my ballot directly to a drop box at the County Clerk’s office. I’d crawl through broken glass, though, and vote in person if that’s what it takes.
That first sentence needs work. Changing “efforts to making” to “efforts at making” might help.
Yep. The reasoning used to uphold RI’s (entirely sane) voting arrangements will be used to uphold (entirely insane) voting arrangements in states controlled by GOP.
Something, something States Rights! garble, garble.
Oh, and Freedumb! (for good measure)
Very small victory. RI has 4 EVs, and is polling 55-40 D-R. The 2020 outcome would not have changed if the court’s decision were the reverse. Figleaf ruling to provide political cover for the big ones.
I strongly disagree with the author’s interpretation of the SCOTUS ruling.
In particular “The majority’s rationale leaves the door wide open for states to continue to seek the Supreme Court intervention in court cases where lower courts rule in favor of expanding voting access during the pandemic.”
In fact I believe all the court was saying is if you settle the case you may not come back to us to get out of your settlement which is entirely different than a lower court ruling on the case.
“The court said Thursday that it would not block Rhode Island’s consent decree, as the RNC and state GOP was requesting ahead of its upcoming primary.”
The majority was unwilling to disturb a “decent degree” validly entered into by the state not a judgment from the court. If they had allowed this then any state could enter into a decree ending the lawsuit and then say “we are Republicans we lied, too bad”.