Months after its November polls, the US Supreme Court has officially rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election.
The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Other than two Pennsylvania disputes, the justices’ decision come as no surprise, putting an end to months of legal wrangling. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked, again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them.
The Case Of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania lawmakers, for their part, made changes to the state’s election laws in response to the pandemic but left in place a November 3 deadline to receive absentee ballots. Democrats sued and Pennsylvania’s highest court cited the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the United States Postal Service delays in extending the deadline for mailed-in ballots to be received.
Republicans had asked the US Supreme Court to put that extension on hold ahead of the election. But in October, following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and before Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to her seat, the justices split 4-4 over doing so, keeping the three-day extension for receiving ballots in place.
In practice, however, because of the ongoing lawsuit, those late-arriving ballots were separated out and have not yet been counted. The state has said that ultimately, fewer than 10,000 ballots were received during those three days. That small number of ballots would not have altered the outcome of the presidential election in the state, which former President Donald Trump lost by some 80,000 votes.
Not All Members Of The Supreme Court Are Onboard
Some of the justices, however, had strong feelings about the court’s decision not to hear two cases from Pennsylvania that had been particularly contentious in the battleground state. Three of the nine justices said they would have heard the case, which would not have affected the election’s outcome.
“We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence,” said Justice Clarence Thomas
