Supreme Court blocks curbside voting in Alabama

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Kim Chandler, Associated Press
Updated 11:10 pm CDT, Thursday, July 2, 2020

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision Thursday blocked a lower court ruling allowing curbside voting in Alabama and waiving some absentee ballot requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conservative justices granted Alabama’s request to stay a federal judge’s order that would allow local officials to offer curbside voting in the July runoff and loosen absentee ballot requirements in three of the state’s large counties. The order will remain stayed while the court decides whether to hear Alabama’s appeal.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said he was pleased the court acted quickly so that Alabama voting rules remain in place for the July 14 runoff.

“Alabama is again able to enforce laws that help ensure the fairness and integrity of our elections," the Republican said.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/article/Supreme-Court-blocks-curbside-voting-in-Alabama-15383781.php

---

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall

[elleng]

1. July 14 runoff.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Commentary: Conservative SC judges don't care about voters

These changes are coming close to the election, so they implicate the Purcell principle. But beyond that, they show the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is not going to put a thumb on the scale favoring voters in this election and instead will view the pandemic-created dislocations in the voting process as not enough of a reason to depart from usual voting rules when states fail to bend their rules to accommodate voter safety and convenience during the pandemic. It is of a piece with the 5-4 decision in RNC v. DNC.

I explore these themes, and the increasing party divide in the courts on the COVID cases, in Three Pathologies of American Voting Rights Illuminated by the COVID-19 Pandemic, and How to Treat and Cure Them (manuscript under review) (June 2020 draft available) (forthcoming Election Law Journal). This is what I wrote there about RNC v. DNC:

Beyond the sloppiness, and most troubling, is the cavalier nature of the Supreme Court’s opinion. It ignored the pandemic and treated the situation as ordinary litigation in an ordinary time. It failed to even mention the voting rights that the plaintiffs were seeking to vindicate. The opinion sent a message that the Court cares little about the voting rights of people in the state, especially AfricanAmerican voters in Milwaukee who had been facing great risk related to the virus.

In this extraordinary time of a pandemic, the Supreme Court chose to vote remotely for safety reasons while denying some Wisconsin voters a chance to do the same. Not only did the Court’s opinion show a nonchalance about the importance of voting rights in the most dire circumstances. It demonstrated that the Court majority could not build a bridge for a unanimous compromise opinion. The signal it sends is that there may well be have partisan warfare at the Court over election issues in the upcoming election, which is already shaping up to be one conducted under conditions of deep polarization and a pandemic.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112775

[diva77]

3. What a cabal! K&R for exposure and deep shame for the cruel conservative

"justices."

[Polybius]

4. Roberts sure is making up for his votes with the liberals on a few cases the past few weeks

[Mz Pip]

7. Roberts giveth

Then Roberts taketh away.

[Cryptoad]

5. Here is the plan ,,,

get all the poor folk to voting the same place then reduce teh number of voting machines so there is no way in hell that everybody can vote within the allotted 12 hours..

Keeping Dumbfuckistan Great!

[mr_lebowski]

6. That's pretty much always been 'the plan', executed 1000's of times in this country (nt)