Rhode Island loosened its witness and notary requirements for voting by mail as part of a consent decree in response to a lawsuit against the requirements during the pandemic. The RNC objected. Today the Supreme Court, over the dissents of Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, rejected an attempt to scuttle the consent decree.

What’s different about this case, compared to the others where the Supreme Court has consistently sided with those who have opposed loosening voting rules during the pandemic? Here the state agreed to the change, and that–and the fact that the change has been in effect in the period just before the election— was enough apparently for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh to change sides. Here’s the Court’s order

The application for stay presented to Justice Breyer and by him referred to the Court is denied. Unlike Merrill v. People First of Alabama, 591 U. S. _ (2020), and other similar cases where a State defends its own law, here the state election officials support the challenged decree, and no state official has expressed opposition. Under these circumstances, the applicants lack a cognizable interest in the State’s ability to “enforce its duly-enacted” laws. Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. , n. 17 (2018). The status quo is one in which the challenged requirement has not been in effect, given the rules used in Rhode Island’s last election, and many Rhode Island voters may well hold that belief.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would grant
the application.