A Supreme Court Victory in Pennsylvania, and the Looming Specter of Amy Coney Barrett
The 4-4 ruling could spell doom once the new justice is confirmed
On Monday October 19th, the Supreme Court rejected the Pennsylvania GOP’s attempt to overturn the extension of voting deadlines in the state to three days beyond election day. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices on the court in the ruling.
While this would appear to be an outright victory for voting rights, and the Democratic party of Pennsylvania and writ large, there is a specter looming over the 4-4 decision, a specter shaped like soon to be confirmed Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Recent polls out of Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, show a tight race with Biden leading by 3-5 points, which is right within the margin of error of most polls. The state, and its 20 electoral votes, could go either way. Which means the chance of future legal challenges remains very high. President Trump has already stated that he wants Judge Barrett to be confirmed as soon as possible to potentially participate in election-related rulings saying, “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.” By “this,” he means the election.
Considering Barrett’s prior rulings and her general alignment with her mentor, Judge Antonin Scalia, it certainly wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that she would side with Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas on similar cases.
This is a troubling prospect because this case, and others that are sure to follow, involve the power of states to govern their elections. In the case in question, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in accordance with their state constitution, citing the “free and equal” clause, and thereby extended mail in voting due to delays from the Covid-19 pandemic. The four conservative justices refused to honor that decision and by all accounts appear to be open to ruling in favor of the power of state legislators over state constitutions. This would open the door for certain states to disregard their constitution—and the right to vote therein—entirely and move to restrict voting rights, and reject votes even more openly than they are already, knowing the Supreme Court will back them up.
While those of us who care about voting rights and democracy should be happy about the victory in Pennsylvania, we also need to prepare for a litany of future battles where a conservative majority is primed to continue to hack away at voting rights in this country. Furthermore, the chance of this election being challenged by the incumbent administration at every level appears more likely with each passing day.
————
If you dig this, please share and subscribe.
It’s free.
————
In Case You Missed It
I put out a video explaining how constitutional originalism is really just clever branding.