Overview of Current Election Challenges
As of the moment, numerous election challenges across states still remain on the docket. A notable instance is the ongoing case from Texas, which could dramatically alter the landscape of these challenges.
Current Status of Challenges
No single case has been consolidated. For now, only one case, particularly involving Pennsylvania, is actually under live consideration. This case involves entirely different claims from others. However, due to procedural and standing issues, the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up this case.
Supreme Court's Decision on Consolidation
The Supreme Court SCOTUS faces limited options in deciding on the consolidation of these challenges. At most, only a maximum of three justices (Thomas, Alito, and Barrett) might be inclined to hear the case. More realistically, the outcome will be a 9-to-0 decision, aligning with the Pennsylvania case, which was previously decided against the challenger.
Inter-state Constitutional Issues and Legal Precedents
The pivotal Pennsylvania case was fundamentally a matter of state constitutional interpretation. In 2018, the state supreme court declared the redistricting unconstitutional, invalidating the process and revising districts itself, just months before the election. This dual process of invalidation and recreation by the court was hurried and controversial.
Democrats hold a significant majority on the court due to the population-dense Philadelphia region. This majority was also beneficial in redrawing boundaries that could secure more seats for Democratic candidates. As the election results were skewed by this controversial redistricting, the decision to challenge it confronts a complex legal landscape.
Mail-in Ballots and Legal Challenges
A major issue that has arisen is the legality of mail-in ballots. The state supreme court ruled these ballots unconstitutional, leading to legislative attempts to revise the constitution to accommodate these methods. Despite these efforts, the legislature did not follow through due to time constraints. The key argument is that since the election law allowed for a 180-day challenge period and no challenge was made, the election was valid. However, this reasoning has been widely criticized.
The Democratic-controlled state supreme court realized that the Supreme Court would likely defer to state constitutional interpretations. Consequently, they allowed the mail-in ballots to proceed, knowing full well that Biden's victory would be secure. This decision maintains their political advantage while undermining the integrity of the electoral process.
Supreme Court and State Authority
Notably, the Supreme Court has consistently refrained from overriding state authority on state constitutional matters. Even with a strong interest in upholding the electoral integrity, the court has still not intervened. This stance underscores its respect for the sovereign nature of state laws and constitutions.
While the Pennsylvania case didn't result in a change in the election outcome, it does signify a broader trend where state courts have significant influence over electoral procedures, despite the Supreme Court's reluctance to intervene.
Conclusion
The current landscape of election challenges is complex and multifaceted. The potential consolidation of these cases, particularly the Texas suit, remains highly speculative. Meanwhile, the ongoing legal battles revolve around state constitutions, redistricting, and the validity of mail-in ballots, showcasing the intricate interplay between state and federal authorities in managing electoral processes.