PA GOP Won’t Get The SCOTUS Intervention It Asked For Just Yet

FILE - In this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito speaks at Roger Williams University Law School in Bristol, R.I. Massive government surveillance of Americans' phone and internet ... FILE - In this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito speaks at Roger Williams University Law School in Bristol, R.I. Massive government surveillance of Americans' phone and internet activity is drawing protests from civil liberties groups, but major legal obstacles stand in the way of any full-blown court hearing on the practice. Among them: government claims that national security secrets will be revealed if the cases are allowed to proceed. The Supreme Court, where several justices have written about complex issues of privacy in the digital age, could be the ultimate stop for such lawsuits. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia, File) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has asked Pennsylvania to respond by Saturday afternoon to a GOP request that the court order election officials not to count the mail ballots that arrive during a disputed, post-Election Day grace period.

But Alito’s order stopped short of giving Pennsylvania Republicans everything that they wanted — earlier Friday the state party had asked for an emergency Supreme Court intervention.

Instead, Alito ordered that election officials follow voluntarily guidance issued by the state late last month that they segregate the late-arriving ballots. Alito’s order said that if election officials counted those ballots, that they should be counted separately.

The state GOP has asked the court to order that officials only segregate and log the late-arriving ballots, and take no further action on them beyond that.

There has been no evidence put forward to suggest that election officials were deviating from Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar’s guidance to segregate the ballots. The Republicans instead pointed to their inability to verify that all of Pennsylvania’s counties were following that guidance.

By seeking out a response to the Republicans claims, Alito — who handled the court’s initial response to the GOP request because he oversees the circuit that contains Pennsylvania — nonetheless played along with the Republicans’ fear-mongering that the election officials couldn’t be trusted to follow the previous guidance.

Alito also seemed to buy the Republicans’ assertion that the minor tweaks that Boockvar made to the late-October guidance were another reason to be suspicious that the ballots aren’t being segregated.

Alito’s order said he was also referring the matter to the rest of the court.
County officials in Pennsylvania have repeatedly confirmed to TPM that their understanding of the updated guidance is that they are not to include the late-arriving ballots in the count tallies being released this week. It’s unclear if at some point they’ll release separately a count of the ballots that arrived after Election Day, but before Friday evening — the extended period that is currently being challenged.

Republicans are challenging the mail ballots that arrived in that time period because it was a state Supreme Court decision that extended the receipt deadline from Tuesday to Friday.

Their first two attempts to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the deadline were not successful, but Trump’s latest appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, has yet to weigh in on the dispute.

Pennsylvania officials have said that so far, it appears that the number of late arriving are very small compared to the overall total number of ballots, and, if current trends hold, unlikely to tip the election.

 

Latest News
62
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Well, yes, but Ms. Sneed (@tierney) left some things out out:

    Until today, this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified.

    The application received today also informs the Court that neither the applicant nor the Secretary has been able to verify that all boards are complying with the Secretary’s guidance, which, it is alleged, is not legally binding on them.

  2. The G.O.P. is trying to raise the ghost of Scalia on this one. “The mere act of counting these ballots will completely undermine the public’s confidence in the electoral process.” Maybe Boofie will be stupid enough to take that bait, but most of the others, I think not.

  3. I wonder if the Republicans will take a chance and ask for the totals on those if Trump can’t claw his way back. These do include the military/overseas ballots which might, might, might give Trump a few more votes.

    I suppose they could say “tell us the total” then try and block them if they don’t help.

  4. Only if they manage to weed out the votes from suckers and losers.

  5. Reasonable–if you think there is some chance that the votes will be thrown out. There really is no justification for not counting them as long as they are kept segregated.

    I suspect that most or all of the county election officials were already following the “guidance” from the state court to keep the ballots segregated. What official wants the possible headache of having to go back and pull the votes out of a larger pool?

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

56 more replies

Participants

Avatar for discobot Avatar for cervantes Avatar for mames5 Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for couseret Avatar for lastroth Avatar for cd Avatar for stradivarius50t3 Avatar for ottnott Avatar for leftcoaster Avatar for darrtown Avatar for dbutch Avatar for misterneutron Avatar for kimaanderson Avatar for joriep Avatar for tiowally Avatar for jmacaz Avatar for dannydorko Avatar for evave2 Avatar for c_stedman Avatar for kovie Avatar for RangerJay Avatar for Scoutmom Avatar for xcopy

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: