The Supreme Court -- AFTER Judge Barrett Is Sworn in -- Will Be Forced to Address Judicial Modifications of State Election Laws

AP Photo/Alex Brandon
AP featured image
Judge Amy Coney Barrett listens as President Donald Trump announces Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court, in the Rose Garden at the White House, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)


Over the last few months, there have been dozens (?) of lawsuits filed in states all across the country challenging state election laws as written on the basis that complications from the impact of the COVID 19 “pandemic” will impact the ability of voters to cast their ballots on Election Day.

Over the past several weeks, we have begun to see decisions come out of the Courts where these challenges have been filed, and the level of Judicial “Solomonic Wisdom” that pervades the outcomes is simply breathtaking.

I cannot even begin to catalog the patchwork quilt of decisions and justifications that have flowed out of Courts — and I’m not even referring to changes to state election laws hastily adopted in Democrat-controlled states.

As I noted here, a federal judge in Texas has PRECLUDED that State from applying a change in state election law adopted 3 years ago — and which brings Texas within a group of 43 other states — by eliminating the option on the ballot to vote a “straight ticket”.  That was the process by which a Texas voter could vote for every candidate of a designated party simply by marking one ballot entry.  Texas law was changed in 2017 to eliminate that voting practice, but implementation was delayed until September 1, 2020.

Three months ago, the same judge dismissed a challenge to the change in the law.  Last Friday she reversed herself and issued an injunction against Texas removing that option from their voting mechanisms.


So that federal judge in Texas REWROTE the Election Statute in Texas because not allowing Texas voters the ability to do something not allowed in 42 other states somehow violates Texas Democrat party candidates’ constitutional right to get votes with one button.

I noted earlier today this story out of Minnesota of an undercover effort by Project Veritas and James O’Keefe to expose ballot fraud in Minnesota.  But also covered there was a “settlement” of a lawsuit in Minnesota where the elected Secretary of State — a Democrat — entered into a “Consent Decree” to settle the lawsuit.  The “Consent Decree” specified that the State of Minnesota was NOT agreeing or acknowledging that existing Minnesota statutes on the handling of mail-in ballots were invalid or unconstitutional.  HOWEVER, JUST THIS ONE TIME, and JUST FOR THIS ELECTION, the Secretary of State — a Democrat — agreed to not enforce two provisions of Minnesota ELECTION LAW in order to settle the lawsuit.  Those two provisions involve having the casting of an absentee ballot be witnessed by a registered Minnesota voter or Notary Public, and the Election Day deadline for receipt of absentee mail-in ballots.

The settlement provided that no witness signature would be needed, and that mail-in ballots could be received up to seven calendar days after Election Day so long as they were postmarked as having been mailed on or before Election Day.


Except — not really.  If there is no postmark, the Elections Officials must PRESUME they were mailed on or before election day unless there is a “preponderance of evidence” to show they were not.

A State Court Judge in Minnesota, Sara Grewing, signed off on the “Consent Decree” which provides that it can be enforced by Order of the Court if a dispute arises.

Who is Sara Grewing???

The former Mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota, and prior to that the City Attorney for St. Paul.

Prior to that?

State Director for Democrat Senator — and former Democrat Presidential Candidate — Amy Klobuchar.

The third case I want to mention is the recent decision by four Judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — all Democrats — rewriting Pennsylvania election law.  The Democratic-controlled high court extended the deadline for mail ballots to be returned, and that voters can use drop boxes to return them.

The changes will likely allow tens of thousands more mail ballots to be counted than would have been accepted previously.

The court ordered that mail ballots be counted as long as county elections officials receive them by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6.  Ballots arriving after Election Day must either be postmarked by Nov. 3 or have no proof they were sent afterward. Ballots that arrive by the new deadline with missing or illegible postmarks would still be counted.

Again — like in Minnesota — if a “mailed” ballot has no postmark, not a problem.  Count the vote unless there is EVIDENCE showing it was not mailed on time.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, has been calling for the GOP-controlled legislature to pass a bill that would allow counties to count ballots postmarked by Election Day — or not postmarked at all.

But who needs a legislature to pass laws when four Judges on the Supreme Court are willing to do it themselves.  House Speaker Bryan Cutler and House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, both Republicans, condemned the Supreme Court ruling, which they said: “makes Pennsylvania’s elections less secure and opens the door to serious questions about the integrity of the process in one of the most.”

Today, an Application for Emergency Stay was filed by Pennsylvania Republican officials with the United States Supreme Court.  Normally, all issues on the interpretation of the meaning of state laws are final when they come from a State’s Supreme Court.  But the Judges in Pennsylvania did not “interpret” Pennsylvania law, they changed it.  They created rules and requirements different from those set forth in the law.

The United States has had to conduct national elections in other times of emergency, but wholesale alterations to election laws where the potential consequences of doing so aren’t well understood is simply an invitation to “Banana Republic” practices of ballot-box stuffing.

The Supreme Court of the United States is going to have no choice but to step into these conflicts and made a definitive judgment on the legitimacy of this rampant practice of state and federal judges using all manner of supposedly “factual” circumstances and conditions to rewrite election laws on the eve of a national election.  And it cannot do so while sitting at 4-4 where the risk of a deadlocked outcome means the Supreme Court is DENIED the final say, as such outcomes are deemed to leave the lower court ruling unchanged.

This is, quite frankly, the most important reason why the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett cannot be derailed, and she must be seated prior to these challenges being decided.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos