6 ms·

SCOTUS to hear arguments by telephone, but only days ago shut off extended absentee voting in Wisconsin. Voters in urban precincts (read: minority voters) were

SCOTUS to hear arguments by telephone, but only days ago shut off extended absentee voting in Wisconsin. Voters in urban precincts (read: minority voters) were forced to stand in long crowded lines for hours in the rain with only a handful of voting sites.

votepaunchy 7y ago
The Wisconsin election should have been nullified and rescheduled rather than attempting to change the rules at the 11th hour. Even allowing for late ballots would not have enfranchised those without a ballot.
- strict9 7y ago
  Allowing late ballots is a less worse outcome than the travesty SCOTUS enabled with the nakedly partisan decision.
tathougies 7y ago
SCOTUS did not shut off extended absentee voting. They weren't even asked to comment on it. They were asked to comment on a decision by a federal judge that went above and beyond what the initial question to that court was. No one asked the district court to extend the election date, but they did anyway. SCOTUS said courts can't do that. They can only extend the date if they had been asked to do that. No one asked. Please don't twist the truth. SCOTUS explicitly stated that they're not answering the question of whether or not the date can be extended. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf This is good. The powers of the Supreme Court are -- and should remain -- limited. We should not welcome authoritarianism simply at the service of convenience or even safety. What should have happened is the Wisconsin state legislature should have met and extended the ballot. They are the sole entity that is blameworthy in this fiasco. Their decision would have been unquestionable in front of any court. We should stop expecting the courts to be able to rule by fiat. That is not their purpose, rightly so.
- duxup 7y ago
  I think a lot of folks hoping for SCOTUS involvement were thinking more generally of it as a voting rights type issue. If that was even an option for them to do is still relevant of course.
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    It's really disingenuous to lay everything at the feet of SCOTUS. Anything related to elections could be seen as a voting rights issue, and if SCOTUS issued binding opinions on all of them it would be a disaster. It would simultaneously federalize elections, and subvert Congress. You really don't want a bunch of appointed-for-life judges to have total control over all elections in the country. The Constitution has little to say about voting, but we all know voting is a complex topic. Voting policy should come from the legislature and SCOTUS should merely oversee it.
    - duxup 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by disingenuous. I can understand folks being concerned / upset that SCOTUS wasn't involved, and they can too still recognize that the question maybe wasn't really posed to SCOTUS. I suppose anything 'could' be a voting rights issue, but the important thing is to actually talk about what that anything is. Limited polling places, being required to wait hours, risk your own health to vote ... to me there is an argument to be made there. I'm not at all sure what your comment about judges deciding are... a judge(s) did decide already.
      - jeffdavis 7y ago
        My point was that SCOTUS restrained the lower courts from getting involved in specific and somewhat creative remedies to the problem. I think that restraint is good, because the alternative is worse.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > I think a lot of folks hoping for SCOTUS involvement were thinking more generally of it as a voting rights type issue. Then they are asking for exactly the kind of 'answer to a question that was never asked' that the Supreme Court told all courts to stop giving.

votepaunchy 7y ago

The Wisconsin election should have been nullified and rescheduled rather than attempting to change the rules at the 11th hour. Even allowing for late ballots would not have enfranchised those without a ballot.

strict9 7y ago
Allowing late ballots is a less worse outcome than the travesty SCOTUS enabled with the nakedly partisan decision.

tathougies 7y ago

SCOTUS did not shut off extended absentee voting. They weren't even asked to comment on it. They were asked to comment on a decision by a federal judge that went above and beyond what the initial question to that court was. No one asked the district court to extend the election date, but they did anyway. SCOTUS said courts can't do that. They can only extend the date if they had been asked to do that. No one asked. Please don't twist the truth. SCOTUS explicitly stated that they're not answering the question of whether or not the date can be extended. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf This is good. The powers of the Supreme Court are -- and should remain -- limited. We should not welcome authoritarianism simply at the service of convenience or even safety. What should have happened is the Wisconsin state legislature should have met and extended the ballot. They are the sole entity that is blameworthy in this fiasco. Their decision would have been unquestionable in front of any court. We should stop expecting the courts to be able to rule by fiat. That is not their purpose, rightly so.

duxup 7y ago
I think a lot of folks hoping for SCOTUS involvement were thinking more generally of it as a voting rights type issue. If that was even an option for them to do is still relevant of course.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  It's really disingenuous to lay everything at the feet of SCOTUS. Anything related to elections could be seen as a voting rights issue, and if SCOTUS issued binding opinions on all of them it would be a disaster. It would simultaneously federalize elections, and subvert Congress. You really don't want a bunch of appointed-for-life judges to have total control over all elections in the country. The Constitution has little to say about voting, but we all know voting is a complex topic. Voting policy should come from the legislature and SCOTUS should merely oversee it.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by disingenuous. I can understand folks being concerned / upset that SCOTUS wasn't involved, and they can too still recognize that the question maybe wasn't really posed to SCOTUS. I suppose anything 'could' be a voting rights issue, but the important thing is to actually talk about what that anything is. Limited polling places, being required to wait hours, risk your own health to vote ... to me there is an argument to be made there. I'm not at all sure what your comment about judges deciding are... a judge(s) did decide already.
    - jeffdavis 7y ago
      My point was that SCOTUS restrained the lower courts from getting involved in specific and somewhat creative remedies to the problem. I think that restraint is good, because the alternative is worse.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > I think a lot of folks hoping for SCOTUS involvement were thinking more generally of it as a voting rights type issue. Then they are asking for exactly the kind of 'answer to a question that was never asked' that the Supreme Court told all courts to stop giving.