Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm.

Supreme Court of the United States
206 L. Ed. 2d 452, 140 S.Ct. 1205 (2020)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Federal courts should not alter state election rules on the eve of an election, particularly by extending the deadline for ballots to be cast beyond election day, as this fundamentally alters the nature of the election and contravenes the principle of judicial restraint in electoral matters.

Facts:

In the weeks preceding Wisconsin's April 7, 2020, election, the COVID-19 pandemic became a significant public health crisis in the state.
On March 24, 2020, Wisconsin's Governor issued a stay-at-home order to slow the spread of the virus.
In response to public health concerns about in-person voting, an unprecedented number of Wisconsin voters, approximately 1.2 million, requested absentee ballots.
This surge in absentee ballot requests overwhelmed election officials, leading to a severe backlog and delays in mailing the ballots to voters.
As a result of the backlog, many voters who had timely requested ballots were unlikely to receive them in time to return them by the state's statutory deadline of 8:00 p.m. on election day, April 7.

Procedural Posture:

Individual Wisconsin voters, community organizations, and the Democratic parties filed suit against members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Wisconsin intervened as defendants.
The District Court granted a preliminary injunction that, among other things, extended the deadline for election officials to receive absentee ballots to April 13, 2020, with no requirement that they be postmarked by election day.
The intervening defendants applied to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for a partial stay of the injunction.
The Seventh Circuit denied the application for a stay.
The intervening defendants then filed an emergency application for a stay of the District Court's order with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a federal district court err by issuing a preliminary injunction that alters state election rules on the eve of an election to allow absentee ballots to be counted if they are mailed and postmarked after election day?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, a federal district court errs by altering state election rules on the eve of an election to allow absentee ballots to be mailed and postmarked after election day. Such a change contravenes this Court's precedents, which emphasize that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter election rules so close to an election. Extending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters, not just received by clerks, for six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election. Critically, the plaintiffs themselves did not ask for this specific relief in their preliminary injunction motions. The District Court's subsequent order enjoining the release of election results for six days highlights the problematic and unusual nature of its intervention, underscoring the wisdom of the 'Purcell' principle, which seeks to avoid judicially created confusion on the eve of an election.

Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg

No, a federal district court does not err in altering election rules when faced with a public health crisis that threatens to disenfranchise tens of thousands of citizens. The COVID-19 pandemic created an extraordinary situation where a massive surge in absentee ballot requests overwhelmed election officials, making it impossible for many voters to receive their ballots by election day. The majority's order, which imposes an April 7 postmark deadline, will result in massive disenfranchisement, as a voter cannot postmark a ballot she has not yet received. The District Court was rightly reacting to a grave, rapidly developing crisis, and its order to delay the release of election results mitigated any concerns of gamesmanship. Ensuring citizens can exercise their right to vote safely should be the paramount concern, outweighing the 'Purcell' principle in these unprecedented circumstances.

Analysis:

This decision strongly reaffirms and applies the 'Purcell principle,' which counsels against federal courts altering state election rules on the eve of an election. The ruling establishes a high bar for judicial intervention, even during a public health crisis, distinguishing between permissible extensions of ballot receipt deadlines and impermissible extensions of ballot casting deadlines. The case signals the Court's significant deference to state-set election rules and its skepticism of lower courts fashioning remedies that go beyond what the litigants originally requested, thereby shaping the landscape for future election litigation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm. (2020)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"