The US supreme court issued a fragile win for voting rights – the real test comes later | Claire Finkelstein
The court’s decision was based entirely on the timing of proposed new mail-in ballot rules. The larger question could re-emerge Last week’s supreme court decision upholding the district court’s restraining order on USPS’s mail-in ballot restrictions is being hailed as a victory for electoral integrity by politicians, political commentators and voting rights advocates alike. The senator Chuck…
The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of voting rights in a recent case, though the significance of the decision may not be fully realized until later. The ruling was based solely on the timing of the proposed changes to mail-in ballot rules, which came into effect on August 21st, just weeks before the midterm elections and just days before several states were to begin mailing out ballots.
Supporters of the ruling, including Senator Chuck Schumer, hailed it as a significant victory for electoral integrity. However, the unsigned three-sentence opinion by the court lacks the substance to be considered as such. The court's decision is predicated on the implementation timeline of the new rules, which could make compliance with the changes difficult, if not impossible, without disenfranchising thousands of voters.
The petition submitted by California and joined by twenty-two other states and the District of Columbia highlighted the challenges of complying with the new rules before the midterms. The court's ruling fails to address the larger question at hand, which could potentially be revived in the future.
Written by urgent.news from The Guardian US's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
