Supreme Court rejects GOP request in Pa. to intervene in mail ballot dispute
The Supreme Court Monday night -- in a closely watched election case -- rejected a request by Pennsylvania Republicans to block a state court order that now allows mail ballots arriving up to three days after Nov. 3 to be counted.
Chief Justice John Roberts appears to have joined the three liberal justices in agreeing to reject the GOP request. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh all said they would have granted an emergency stay of the state court order.
The split decision by the court is a major victory for Democrats who had argued that the state’s statutory requirement that mail-in ballots must be received by Election Day violates the state constitution. They said the pandemic, coupled with documented postal service delays, would have led to potential widespread disenfranchisement.
Republicans, who have been defending state law and wanted to preserve the Election Day deadline, argued the extension was an “open invitation to cast ballots after Election Day” and create “chaos” and fraud.
Legal experts have considered this case a major bellwether for a raft of other ballot related cases percolating on the court’s docket.
Nancy Patton Mills, chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, said it was a "significant victory" for voters and that the "Supreme Court was right to throw out (Harrisburg Republicans) latest bad faith effort to muddy this election."
However, Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Lawrence Tabas said Republicans disagree with the decision and said the fact that it was a 4-4 decision "only underscores the importance of having a full Supreme Court as soon as possible."
“To be clear, the Supreme Court decided not to grant a stay -- which does not mean the actions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would withstand a legal challenge to their Judicial overreach should the Court hear the case,” Tabas continued.
Also weighing in were parties on either side of the Supreme Court confirmation fight.
"It is disturbing that 4 justices would have granted the stay sought by the Republican party. This underscores why Judge Amy Coney Barrett should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court at this moment because there is a good chance that she would be casting the deciding vote on matters related to the 2020 election," Kristen Clarke, president and executive director at the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said in a statement.
The Honest Elections Project’s executive director, Jason Snead, cited in a statement other cases moving through the courts and said, "It will certainly make headlines, but it is neither a license for other courts to modify election deadlines, nor a resolution of this crucial issue. There are clearly sufficient votes on the Court to hear this case should a cert petition be filed."
-ABC News Senior Washington Reporter Devin Dwyer and Benjamin Siegel