Supreme Court Rulings on Pennsylvania and North Carolina Elections: Implications and Concerns
The recent rulings of the US Supreme Court on Pennsylvania and North Carolina election cases have raised significant concerns among democratic observers. These decisions, marked by a clear ideological divide, have sparked discussions about the future of voting rights and the integrity of the electoral process in the United States.
North Carolina: A 5-3 Divided Decision
The Supreme Court's decision in the North Carolina election case was a 5-3 split, with justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in the majority and Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan in the minority. This was not entirely surprising, considering a similar 6-3 split decision in Rhode Island in August. The state's failure to defend its voting laws and instead strike a plea bargain with the appellants likely influenced the Supreme Court's decision to defer to the state's wishes, as evidenced by Roberts and Kavanaugh's stance in the ruling.
Pennsylvania: A 4-4 Impasse
The Pennsylvania election case presented a more complex challenge. Last week, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on whether a state court can interpret the state's voting laws. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh argued against state courts interpreting these laws, while Justices Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan supported this right. The Pennsylvania GOP state legislature re-filed the case on October 24, before Barrett's confirmation, ensuring that Barrett would not recuse herself from the case.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Pennsylvania's request to fast-track the case and rule on the merits, as Alito concurred, stating that the case could be revisited if late ballots could affect the election results. Alito's statement, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch but not by Kavanaugh, indicates that Kavanaugh's position may shift significantly. Just three weeks ago, the same three justices were willing to invalidate South Carolina votes without a witness signature while an order was in place. This decision suggests that Kavanaugh might not be willing to invalidate ballots in Pennsylvania, but no guarantees can be given.
Preventing Another Bush v. Gore
The potential for another Bush v. Gore-style dispute looms large. To prevent such an outcome, there is a proposal for Justices Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch to form a coalition supporting an independent electoral committee's findings. However, this is considered an unlikely scenario. If the election is disputed, the Supreme Court might decide to hand the election to Trump or reject the throwing out of votes, ensuring a more balanced outcome.
Implications for the Future
The Supreme Court's rulings indicate a long-term trend of hostility towards voting rights. With Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation, the composition of the Court has shifted, raising concerns about future decisions. The idea that state legislatures can do whatever they want with ballots suggests that Trump's attempts to stop Nevada from mailing ballots to all registered voters might fail. However, it also means that states can almost do anything they like with voter restrictions, further jeopardizing the integrity of the democratic process.
Conclusion
These recent rulings highlight the ongoing tension between the Supreme Court and democratic processes in the United States. While the immediate future might offer some respite, the long-term implications could be severe for the nation's democratic integrity. The United Nations' calls for economic sanctions due to alleged corrupt election processes may resonate louder now than ever before.