Good quote in an article entitled “The waiting game: Slow vote-counting in primaries could foreshadow November chaos:”
The National Association of Secretaries of State told Fox News that “the likelihood of delayed election results in November due to increased absentee and voting by mail during COVID-19, will vary by state and is an important voter education issue states are working to address.”
But the group emphasized that “slower results should not be considered harmful to the democratic process, but instead shows the commitment state and local election officials have to getting the outcome right.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court announced Tuesday it would hear arguments over who should remain on the state’s voter rolls in late September at the earliest — the latest sign the court won’t decide the case until after the presidential election.
In a 5-2 order, the justices wrote that they would hold arguments as part of the court’s regular schedule and would not do so before Sept. 29. With arguments so late in the fall, it appears unlikely the court would rule before the Nov. 3 election — a point the dissenters noted.
The case is Merrill v. People First and the state’s petition is here.
Here is my earlier coverage of the 11th Circuit ruling and the district court order.
Justice Thomas asked for a response by July 2 and the election is July 14, so a ruling will likely be quick.
Now that results are coming in for Kentucky’s primary last week, this line in a local report is worth noting:
Blevins says no absentee ballots were rejected due to signatures not matching those on file. But he says quite a few were rejected for not having signatures on both the inner and outer envelopes.
As those of writing about the absentee ballot process always point out, the rejection rate for these ballots — especially among those voting absentee for the first time — is much higher than for in-person voting. That’s because the absentee ballot process includes various procedural requirements (which vary by state) with which voters must comply to ensure the ballots are valid. When the official tallies are complete, it will be worth keeping an eye on this rejection rate.
You can find the opinion, authored by Judge Edith Jones, at this link. The court found no liability under Section 2’s result’s test and rejected the district court finding of intentional racial discrimination. Judge Duncan, concurring in the judgment, believed there was no standing to even bring the suit.
The NAACP LDF’s statement is here.
David Corn for Mother Jones:
Edward Foley has a nightmare. It’s a poli-sci horror tale. A professor of constitutional law and elections expert at The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, Foley foresees a scenario for the coming election that could tear apart American democracy.
Peer ahead to election night and imagine a close contest between Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee, so close that the results in Pennsylvania will decide the winner. As the evening proceeds, Trump is narrowly ahead in the Keystone State, with the news networks tallying the incoming votes. When 100 percent of the precincts report, Trump is up by 20,000 votes, and he tweets: “The race is over. Another four years to keep Making America Great Again.” But hold on. The next day—and in the days ahead—as the counting of absentee and provisional votes occurs in routine fashion, Trump’s lead declines. The election is being stolen, Trump proclaims. His devotees take to the streets. The final result comes in: The Democrat triumphs by several thousand votes. “THIS THEFT WILL NOT STAND,” Trump tweets, and he declares political war.
In a 55-page law review article published last year, Foley depicts in granular detail what could happen at this point, if Trump and the Republicans opt to challenge the Pennsylvania results. Here’s a spoiler: It’s a damn mess with no clear outcome. And this one case study of how the 2020 presidential race could become a disaster has caught the attention of academics, former government officials, and policy advocates who have been banding together in different forms to try to address the many ways the election might be disrupted or contested.