Commentary: Hackery at its worst: Supreme Court conservatives just gave Wisconsin a greenlight to disenfranchise voters
AP

Commentary: Hackery at its worst: Supreme Court conservatives just gave Wisconsin a greenlight to disenfranchise voters

  • 0
{{featured_button_text}}
The U.S. Supreme Court has canceled all April 2020 arguments because of the coronavirus outbreak. Typically, the justices hear arguments in March and April before releasing decisions in May and June.

The U.S. Supreme Court has canceled all April 2020 arguments because of the coronavirus outbreak. Typically, the justices hear arguments in March and April before releasing decisions in May and June. (Dreamstime/TNS)

The Los Angeles Times warned in an editorial last month that the COVID-19 pandemic threatened not only the health of individuals but the democratic process. The Supreme Court exacerbated that infection Monday when the justices blocked a lower court's decision to extend the period in which Wisconsin voters could mail in absentee ballots.

The Democratic presidential primary was only one of many contests on Tuesday's ballot in Wisconsin. As the COVID-19 crisis deepened, it became obvious that some voters would face a choice between exercising the franchise and protecting their health by staying home. But first the Wisconsin Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court failed to rise to the occasion.

On Monday the state Supreme Court rebuffed an attempt by Wisconsin's Democratic governor to suspend in-person voting on Tuesday and expand voting by mail. Then late Monday the U.S. Supreme Court, with Democratic and Republican appointees on opposite sides, stayed an order by a lower federal court requiring Wisconsin to count mail-in ballots if they arrived by April 13 even if they were mailed after Election Day.

In an unsigned opinion, the court's conservative justices providing a textbook example of exalting form over substance. The majority complained that the extended deadline for absentee ballots "fundamentally alters the nature of the election." It cited the precedent of a 2006 decision in which the court overturned an injunction preventing Arizona's use of a photo ID requirement - a ruling from a calmer time. Precedent loses its force in unprecedented circumstances.

This ruling is outrageously oblivious to the emergency posed by the pandemic. In the 2006 case the court emphasized that a state "indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process." But given the pandemic and the disruptions it creates for the election process, the lower court's order promoted exactly that objective.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a dissent signed by three other Democratic appointees, the court's order means that absentee voters must postmark their ballots by Tuesday, even if they didn't receive their ballots by that date because of a backlog. The result, she warned, could be "massive disenfranchisement."

As disturbing as the result of the court's ruling is the fact that it pitted conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents against liberal justices appointed by Democratic presidents, seeming to validate the perception that the justices are "politicians in robes." So much for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s campaign to portray the court as being aloof from partisan politics.

___

ABOUT THE WRITER

Michael McGough is the Los Angeles Times' senior editorial writer, based in Washington, D.C.

Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

Will your neighborhood school open on schedule in the fall? The answer should vary by location, but some headline-grabbing declarations are prolonging the uncertainty for families and students. And uncertainty leads to fear - an infectious state of mind best treated with a dose of common sense. Special-interest groups encouraged educators to "scream bloody murder" if collective bargaining and ...

  • Updated
  • 2 min to read

A perennial issue in the California Legislature is the scope of personal injury lawsuits, known to insiders as "tort wars." This year's skirmish is over using lawsuits to go after alleged tax cheats, columnist Dan Walters says.

It has often occurred to me that the appropriate response to some of the ridiculous things President Donald Trump utters is: "He's an idiot." Don't get me wrong (as op-ed writers like to say). I'm not impugning Trump's IQ. By "idiot" I mean something a bit different: that Trump often doesn't know what he's talking about. (That doesn't exclude the possibility that some of his misrepresentations ...

If there is a silver lining to the flawed U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic, it is this: The relatively high number of new cases being diagnosed daily - upward of 20,000 - will make it easier to test new vaccines. To determine whether a vaccine prevents disease, the study's subjects need to be exposed to the pathogen as it circulates in the population. Reopening the economy will likely ...

The COVID-19 health crisis has had a devastating effect on the nation's restaurant industry. According to a National Restaurant Association survey taken April 20, 8 million of the nation's 11 million restaurant workers are currently unemployed. Hundreds of thousands of restaurants have closed, and one in five will not reopen. For the remaining restaurants, delivery sales have increased from ...

In July 2001, a 28-year-old woman named Lori Klausutis fell and hit her head on a desk at work in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. She was found dead the next morning. The medical examiner concluded that there was no foul play, and it later turned out that Klausutis had an undiagnosed heart condition. There would be no reason today to publicly discuss this tragic accident, but for the fact that ...

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

News Alerts

Breaking News