Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin from extending absentee voting deadline

Can't have more votes coming in, that's almost always bad for the GOP since they are less popular. Self admitted reasons for voter suppression and gerrymandering. They objectively want turn out limited because it helps their chances. Or dirty shit like this:

U.S. Supreme Court Slams Door on Wisconsin Vote-by-Mail for Mid-Pandemic Primary

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/scotus-slams-door-on-wisconsins-mid-pandemic-vote-by-mail.html

Late Monday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court insisted on maintaining an in-person coronavirus-plagued primary (and for certain offices, general election) contest for Tuesday, April 7, despite a massive shortage of poll workers and a lot of voters rightly terrified of congregating. In so doing the Wisconsin court’s 4-2 conservative majority confirmed the wishes of the Republican-controlled legislature in this intensely polarized state, where the GOP would prefer to keep turnout limited.

Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin from extending absentee voting deadline

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/491466-supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-from-extending-absentee-voting

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday night ruled that Wisconsin cannot accept absentee ballots postmarked after its voting day Tuesday.

In a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the conservative justices sided with Republican state lawmakers by halting a lower court order to extend absentee voting to April 13, a measure that would have expanded options for avoiding in-person voting amid the coronavirus pandemic.

This is down right nasty, and 100% due to tribal political reasons. The GOP really seems out of touch.

Also whats up with Wisconsin in general:

Republican Gerrymandering Has Basically Destroyed Representative Democracy in Wisconsin

https://www.gq.com/story/republican-gerrymandering-wisconsin

A key underlying factor in Wisconsin's power-grab? Gerrymandering.

The GOP won 161k more votes statewide in 2016 and 29 more seats in the assembly. This year, the Democrats won 205k more votes -- and the GOP won 27 more seats. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/?utm_term=.e128917ea26a …

Why so much dirty politics there?

Voting is the cornerstone of democracy.

Why are republicans so hell bent on making so as few people as possible are able to vote?

@Nuck81: Because they can’t win if they don’t?

So from your legal expertise and you have of course read the actual judgement, this is 100% due to tribal reasons and not because of actual legitimate legalities? like the Purcell principle.

And what is up with Wisconsin? well, for one they have a working legal system, which to your surprise don´t have to judge things as the left see it, to be right.

Also, the minority with Ginsburg, seem to be of the idea that they should not uphold the law but act as a "mommy" and disregard the law.

Because the facts are there is absolutely no legal obligation for Wisconsin to extend absentee votes or stop the mid-week primaries. And btw the question before the court was only if ballots postmarked (meaning sent after 4/7) should be counted.

The DNC can however just cancel it if they wish.

It's the state supreme court election, Democrats are most concerned about here.

I get that they are following their own legal precedent here, that you can't change any rules about an election so close to the election itself. But the implication here is that precedent must be followed even in unprecedented situations. The deadlines were extended due to last minute increased demand for absentee ballots that the state did not have capacity to keep up with. Many voters will not get their ballots in time to vote. The court said too bad, go stand in line, essentially picking legal technicality over public health.

Legal technicality isn't even the right term, we're talking precedent, not law. The whole this is how we did it last time defense. I'm curious if there is any situation they would say warranted rethinking the precedent. Like if the White House got nuked on Nov. 1st, would elections go forward as planned Nov. 2nd?

Trump is more than willing to tell you himself.

Where are all the Cons arguing states rights?

Yes. Republicans want other Republicans to win and will rule in a way that helps with that, or damage the other side. I know, such a wild idea!

Welcome to politics in USA? We have objectively seen this FACT with gerrymandering and voting rights rulings in the past....

So you like the gerrymandering in WI? I wonder why, heh.

The fact is they are putting lives at risk by this ruling. They don't have to, but they should have. Sadly partisan hackery won the day.

Bingo.

Wisconsin votes as National Guard is called out, many polling places closed

Surgeon General Jerome Adams said on the "TODAY" show that residents should wear face masks when casting their ballots.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/wisconsin-set-vote-national-guard-called-out-many-polling-places-n1178206

What a shit show. GOP sure likes making things fucked.

He doesn't care.

It will help his party out or hurt the othe rparty. This is 100% literally all it is about. Even though lives are being put at risk.

Well, i guess in a sense you could say that they are following their own "legal precedent"

But at least the majority is citing and using actual case-law where the minority ruling is more a "but we should" instead of a citing of legal precedent that goes for an extension of the mail-in-ballot.

Also, it´s interesting to read the absolute disastrous news coverage of this, the deadline is already extended and 1.2 million have already gotten their mail-in ballot, so it´s not like there's is an active attempt of suppression.

An interesting question in the end, in the case of a nuke, there is of course not going to be an election, since not only the white house will be nuked but also most if not all of the federal government agencies and institutions.

So who would even vote in someone? the line would just follow to the first able successor to the white house presidency.

Yes, the majority laid out a very technocratic answer for why we should follow the precedent they made up in previous rulings that came up after they unilaterally eliminated some provisions of the Voting Rights Act. My whole point is that there is no legal precedent for the situation. We shut down most of the country over a global pandemic. Are the minority expected to cite a precedent for something that hasn't happened before? And if the shelter in place order is not a good enough reason to extend an election deadline, what is? None of this is defined because this isn't a law.

The court keeps falling back on this it's too close to the election to interfere with it, but it's rare that wouldn't be the case. The judicial system moves slowly, and by the time these cases reach the Supreme Court it's usually going to be close to the election in question. Seem to be saying states that if they change voting laws at the right time, they are guaranteed to get away with it.

Following legal precedent is a GOP scam!!

@vl4d_l3nin: Pretty much what I gathered.

Yup, it is

;) /something used here.

If you call laying out a text-book legal argument "technocratic" answer sure,

And yes the minority should cite legal backing for their judgment, if there isn't any precedent to back it up, then this is not for the courts but for the lawmakers in Wisconsin or the US Congress to legislate on.

That is why we have a separation of power, which I know democrats have a very very hard time acknowledging.

Also as to the judgment itself, the majority is of course right, there should not be anyone for voting after the 7th, it´s like the democratic trick, ballot harvesting, which is a well know democratic trick.

In an extremely unprecedented situation man, have some common sense and maybe even a regular human heart. Have you not turned on the news for the last 2 months?!

Wisconsin votes as National Guard is called out, many polling places closed

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/wisconsin-set-vote-national-guard-called-out-many-polling-places-n1178206

Why do you want those voters to risk their lives so badly?

I mean...you two have heard what's going on in the world right now.....Have you heard of this thing called "Covid-19" ?

Don't worry n64dd, you can pretend it's not a big deal and a hoax like you did a few weeks ago.

Why do you want to allow for ballot harvesting? and cheating?

Ballot harvesting? Cheating? Only Republicans do that.

Why do you want those voters to risk their lives? Can you answer a simple question?

Why do assume such things? They are not correlations dude.

Why do you like gerrymandering and voter suppression, and the party that cheats even more?

By the ways....you don't mind that people are out voting during the Pandemic? It's okay, I know you won't answer this one.

Guess why he does........

It´s a confirmed tactic by numerous sources

Stealing an election legally via ‘ballot harvesting’

By Pamela Prichard

Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 12:02am

California Democrats “stole” the midterm election using a new method that is illegal elsewhere, but completely legal in the Golden State: a practice called “ballot harvesting,” which allows third parties to submit mail-in ballots for voters.

It sounds “bizarre,” as outgoing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) described it to the Washington Post – but it is absolutely true: Democratic operatives handed in pile after pile of other people’s ballots.

And Democrats are proud of it, mocking Republicans for failing to take advantage of a new law signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016, over GOP objections, that allows “ballot harvesting,” and which some Republicans are now blaming for their defeat … .

“Ballot harvesting” by Democratic Party operatives – a surprise tactic they likely saved for the general election – appears to have made the difference. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Democrats ran a disciplined, door-to-door campaign offering to deliver voters’ ballots to the polls:

@Jacanuk: Mail in ballots are not illegal.

@Jacanuk: Doesn't this refer to dropping off people's ballots for them? What's nefarious about it?

Democrats might get to vote...…….we can't have that.

We've done it before.

Rights are inalienable. They don't go out the window when the world takes a turn for the worse. Overturning legal precedent in this case would set a worse one.

No, it refers to collecting them and keeping them until it´s too late for the opponent to muster extra support. And only using them if it can secure them a win.

Not to mention the problem of other people "collecting" ballots and there is no way of verifying their legitimacy

like.... the right to vote? If you used the bolded premise in light of a "turn for the worse" that prevents voting, wouldn't the logic lead to changes supporting that right to vote?

So, COVID-19 cannot be taken into account? Shelter in place everyone, but also go out and vote, just don't touch anything I guess. Also, we had to shut down some poling stations. But hey, we don't want to cause any confusion by extending a deadline. That would be too much for your puny brains to handle.

That's so sad I thought he meant actual cheating like the GOP does.

I couldn't find any stories detailing that, and I'm having trouble envisioning how that occurs since results aren't posted until closure. Walk me through how that works.

Not by a court no. That is the whole concept of the separation of powers. you know the foundation of democracy.

Covid-19 concerns are for the legislative power, you know the people we vote in to secure our rights.

Legal precedents is not equal to human rights FYI.

This false choice you Republicans created for these people (you didn't have to, it was down party lines) is proving disastrous,

Wisconsin experiences long lines at limited voting locations amid pandemic

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/491513-wisconsin-experiences-long-lines-at-limited-voting-locations-amid

Just like how Trump originally screwed up with the Virus, now Republicans are finding new ways to screw up.

And ? not sure what the link is supposed to prove?

Again if the democrats wanted to "shelter" the voting, they could have legislated their way out of it, not counted on a court to do it for them.

That like Trump, the Republicans continue to make poor choices regarding this virus.

You still didn't answer, do you want people voting today? It's a yes or no.

No one should be voting during this crisis period. That is the only answer and the Democrat Governor should put a stop to it all.

Ehmm? the republicans have not made any decisions, the supreme court have stopped, a non-legal precedence from standing.

Because I hope you realize that a very wrong legal precedence could have been set by the lower courts ruling, so the supreme court could not have allowed it to stand.

Pushing back election deadlines is not supporting anyone's right to vote. Those deadlines exist for a reason. The main idea here is preserving sound precedent. If this was overturned, Wisconsin could push back voting during flu season. That would be insane.

As for the mailing issue - They literally just want less people voting because it's better for them in the long run. This is tribal politics, that's a fact.

Coronavirus has ignited a battle over voting by mail. Here's why it's so controversial.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/coronavirus-has-ignited-battle-over-voting-my-mail-here-s-n1178531

But in the past few weeks, as the extent of the coronavirus outbreak became clearer and Democrats ramped up calls for national vote-by-mail, the partisan lines have sharpened.

Liberal-aligned groups that don't primarily focus on voting rights, such as the Sierra Club and abortion rights advocates, have joined the calls for vote-by-mail while conservatives have repurposed longstanding arguments about voter fraud to line up in opposition.

The tension sets up a battle in Congress over the next coronavirus relief measure, known to many on Capitol Hill as "Phase 4." Democratic leaders face growing pressure from their base — liberal activists and mainstream figures alike — to use the next aid package as leverage to ensure access to the ballot box by requiring every state to offer the option of voting by mail.

"With the insanity of Wisconsin, Democrats have the proof they need to make this a mandate for November," said Neera Tanden, the president of Center For American Progress, a think tank influential in Democratic circles.

She urged Democrats to do whatever they can to ensure vote-by-mail becomes law everywhere as a "fallback" in case the virus limits people from voting in person.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., urging her to make it a priority to "enact a national vote-by-mail requirement for every federal election in 2020," while moderate Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has made vote-by-mail a focus since ending her presidential run.

Pelosi included national vote-by-mail in Democrats' opening bid on the previous legislation, but it was removed due to Republican opposition. GOP aides cited security concerns and objected to using a coronavirus aid bill to overhaul election laws.

"It's a nonstarter," a senior Senate Republican staffer, who wasn't authorized to speak on the record, said of national vote-by-mail. "Republicans believe in federalism."

GOP opposition has only hardened since the last relief bill was passed two weeks ago, with Trump and his allies suggesting national vote-by-mail is little more than a Democratic plot to steal the election.

"You'd never have a Republican elected in this country again," Trump said last week on Fox News, referring to vote by mail.

That's fine, it's just that conclusion doesn't follow from the argument you laid out above.

@mattbbpl: Sure it does. The more election deadlines are pushed back, it creates more room for error and fraud. That endangers peoples votes.

About sums it up:

Despite that fact that the votes are "late" because voters didn't receive ballots in time due the government being overwhelmed by the pandemic?

It's quite a reach to characterize that as protecting voting rights.

Yes, and the Wisconsin Legislature brought the Supreme Court in instead of dealing with this themselves. Why?

Also, I do agree ballot harvesting should not be legal. Congress should put together a bill that takes care of that, gerrymandering, Cross Check, and all the other shenanigans politicians do to suppress their voters.

It would never get past Mitch. Gerrymandering too important to the GOP.