SCOTUS decision on late ballots underlines need – Latest News
The Supreme Court shocked observers Monday in Watson v. Republican National Committee by permitting states to depend ballots that arrive after Election Day. But simply because one thing is constitutional doesn’t make it proper, or sensible.
The case concerned a Mississippi law, not a California one. Mississippi permits ballots to be accepted in the event that they arrive up to 5 days after Election Day, as long as they’re postmarked in time. California’s commonplace is more lenient, permitting ballots to reach up to seven days late.
The system has made California infamous for its interminable delays, and for Election Night leads that flip into painful defeats in close races by the time the mail-in ballots are counted.
The Supreme Court shocked observers by permitting states to depend ballots that arrive after Election Day. REUTERS
The very concept that ballots might be counted in the event that they arrive after Election Day creates suspicion. Why wouldn’t political campaigns simply wait to see how many votes they need to make up after Election Night, then slip by way of as many ballots as they needed to make up the distinction?
That is meant to be inconceivable, since ballots nonetheless need to be postmarked by Election Day to be counted, and since of security round poll drop containers. Still, it’s not as if California is a stranger to fraud, and the stakes are high enough that some activists may simply attempt their luck.
The Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cited slender, originalist grounds. “The Constitution requires the ‘Day on which [the electors] shall give their Votes’ to be ‘the same throughout the United States,’ … but says nothing about the day for receipt.”
The system has made California infamous for its interminable delays. Getty Images
The dissent, by Justice Samuel Alito, states: “Allowing absentee ballots to pour in over the days and weeks after election day, by which point preliminary election returns are being publicly reported, creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further undermining the public’s confidence in election integrity.”
Justice Barrett acknowledges that drawback, however says that “policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts.”
Sign up for the California Morning Report publication
California’s high information, sports activities and leisure delivered to your inbox daily.
Thanks for signing up!
So — it’s up to the legislatures, and the voters, to revive trust within the American voting system.
President Donald Trump is pushing Congress to go the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (“SAVE America”) Act. He could but discover the votes. Regardless, in California, a poll initiative to require voter ID has a actual likelihood of passing in November.
The courts usually are not coming to our rescue. The destiny of our democracy is in our own arms. We shouldn’t miss the chance to make a distinction.
