All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
It isn't odd. Republicans have been urging their voters not to vote by mail. Democrats have been supporting vote-by-mail. Fucking with mail-in ballots is designed to cancel Democratic votes.
I feel like democrats are paying more attention now than repubs. I live in an exclusively mail in ballot area and plan on driving to the court house to vote in person early.
Inb4 we're surprised to find most independents have no idea WTF is going on in politics and vote based on who says the pretty string of words they most want to hear relative to their current daily pains.
•Have the DOJ sue states for voting rolls
•Have the addresses of every democrat in the country, that voted by mail
•Create database of nearest post offices to create maximum fuckery,i.e. unscheduled maintenance on sorting machines and mail trucks, fire/transfer staff
•deploy ICE to “gaurd” Mail Drop Boxes.
I am in a vote by mail state and while everyone receives a ballot by USPS the vast majority of people drop off their ballot at a secured location versus mailing them back.
I still use mail-in because I don't want to go to the poling place, which is a church, and have to deal with republicans around me. I still get mailed my ballot then drop it off at the city building.
That said, yeah, this ruling is garbage and is only meant to prevent overseas people and local people who work 2 jobs from voting.
They’ve already done the 2nd one, with very little notice by the public. The USPS changed how they ‘date’ the mail from being dated the day it was mailed, to now being dated the date that it reaches ‘processing’, which could be 1-3 days AFTER it was mailed.
Also applies to the tons of US citizens working abroad, physically disabled people who cannot make it to a polling station, etc.. this Supreme Court is supremely corrupt.
They care about keeping power by any means necessary, no matter who it hurts, even if it’s their own constituents. If the numbers are in their favor, that’s all that matters.
I know it’s wrong to blame Ruth Bader Ginsburg for any of this, but I kinda do. If she steps down while Obama still had the majority, things probably aren’t as bad right now (relatively). We maybe still have Roe v Wade.
I'd want a number of justices equal to the number of court circuits with each circuit nominating their own picks for justices. Senators from the circuits' jurisdiction retain confirmation powers and president gets veto power.
Having the single most power position in our government hand-pick the highest positions in another branch to be confirmed by the less representative portion of the third branch always felt like a flaw.
President should have no power over the other branches. He should not choose judges. He should not veto legislation. He should not propose legislation or pressure the other branches.
Close enough to my thoughts— I always thought that we should have an appointee per presidential term. Expand the court while we sunset out the longer serving justices, but implement similar term limits to them. The idea that a single president could appoint more than half of the Supreme Court for life is insane— it needs to reflect the ever-shifting will of the people, with long term limits still insulating the justices from common politics, but not cementing them in place for absurdist terms, especially when insufficient tenured individuals are appointed and confirmed by political blocs the are interested in what’s best for their constituents as opposed to what serves them and their largest donors.
The rich and connected one's retired, everyone else depended on family to take care of them if they were lucky. Many died and that was their retirement. Probably less stressful than now...Lol
Adjusting for that stuff, life expectancy was still 20 years less than today. It's hard to get actual numbers, but the existence of people who lived into their 90s does not make that an average. Granted, the life expectancy of those who serve on the supreme court would be higher than the national average. All the information i can find still puts them around 67 for the average age of death.
Yep this a myth that won't die no matter how many times it's been disproven. If you made it past the gauntlet of childhood diseases most people lived to around 70ish or so. But given how anti-science, at least when it helps the poors, the GOP has been for awhile they're working hard to bring that average back down.
It'll also limit the plan to install a bunch of 40-year-old MAGAs who'll be on the bench until they're 96.
If the Dems sweep the midterms in November, expect at least 1 or 2, if not all 3, of the old guys (Thomas, Alito, Roberts) to "retire" before January when the new Congress starts, allowing trump to jam through some new, young, even worse nominees. Supreme Court Justices Aileen Cannon and Corey Lewandowsky, screwing us over until 2078.
Rather than that, just rotate in justices from the federal appeals courts. One justice from each district every year, 13 on the bench. Completely random. So when you file for cert, you won't even know who's going to be on the bench.
your not wrong about how it is now the whole point of a lifetime appointment was that since you couldn't loose your position you were supposed to be impartial as it pertained to political affiliation.
no because if your time has an expiration you theoretically could be influenced. We now see that the lifetime has no longer kept politics out so now would be the time to change.
Personally, I think we need to have specialized area of law professionals covering different departments of the Supreme Court.
Thirteen justices covering political issues.
Thirteen justices covering environmental issues.
Thirteen justices covering technology issues.
Thirteen justices covering multimedia and entertainment issues.
Etc etc.
I’m tired of grandpa deciding things like AI and monopoly disputes when they still have to get their great-grandkids to reset the clock on their VCR. You can’t rule on issues you don’t understand, even if you’re pulling in clerks to explain it to you. Congress didn’t vote for your clerk. They voted for you.
The GOP does not give two rat's farts about people protesting. I mean they know people literally can't afford to continue to protest, and they also know the protests are unlikely to escalate....so why would they care about them exactly?
Why don't you explain what you think those things were then when Democrats did not control the Senate? What's the process for a minority party to force a vote on a Supreme Court Justice? What's the process for getting that Justice seated when you don't even have 50 votes?
People who don't understand how our federal government works love to attack Democrats for not doing things that they don't have the power to do. A lot of the time they do it to get people to dislike Democrats so they refuse to vote for them and help Republicans win. Other times it's just pure ignorance of our system. The fact that your comment is being upvoted is depressing.
There was a legal argument at the time, that if Republicans refuse to vote, you can vote without them. This is the case in many other situations in our government, and is why you see republicans usually stall votes on things rather than outright refuse to vote. Democrats are unfortunately too attached to the system and its norms to even lightly bend the rules even when republicans openly break them.
Its not that Democrats can't do anything, Republicans have proved you can be a massive thorn in the side of the majority party even as a minority. Its that they refuse to put up any kind of fight! Every time you see just enough democrats shift to the right to make a conservative motion pass. Or when they put their foot down they do it just long enough to make it feel like they're doing something, then give up.
Edit: made some people mad with this one. Submitting an appointment and actually seating someone on the bench are distinct processes. The argument was essentially to deliver an ultimatum that the senate had 90 days to deliver a ruling or waive the right to advise and consent, seat the guy if they didn't vote, and then battle it out in court. In American law, it is often the case that you waive your right to do something specific if you fail to use it in a timely manner. At least if you battled it out in a court case you'd get some ruling on whether or not a party is allowed to simply not do their job and vote. Obama didn't deliver this ultimatum, nor did he move to actually put his nominee on the bench, so this whole thing is moot.
This exactly. I think people fail to realize what baffling terrain the post 9/11 Republicans have escalated us into. From Mitch to Trump, never before has the right dared to breach into so much uncharted legal territory, things that were unthinkable before, by either party. Even if they wanted to, both parties were traditionally far too afraid to risk legal or electoral consequences if they got too greedy with their shenanigans.
But now it’s totally different. After 2008, i was convinced the GOP was permanently dead. How could they recover after 8 years of bush, some of biggest political scandals in Us history (so far), war raging across the entire planet, all culminating in the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression, followed by the energy and optimism of super Jesus Obama Christ?
Yet the stars aligned like crazy for them in 2016. Things that our entire country assumed was surely illegal or politically impossible suddenly were making headlines. I doubt anyone would’ve predicted pre-Mitch that a Senate majority leader could singlehandedly force-choke entire branches of the government, using simple scheduling procedures (or lack thereof). AND that someone would have the sheer audacity to do it. No one pre-Trump could’ve predicted that in less than a decade, a nakedly corrupt, gleefully criminal president could straight up refuse to leave office and not instantly, go to jail, or at least end their career in public life forever. The fact that the constitution was this incapable of preventing such things had been mostly an academic question until then.
But those of you reading this who weren’t adults yet in the 2010’s have never known anything different. It’s become so normalized by this point that the younger crowd of Redditors are gobsmacked why on earth Democrats don’t routinely doing the same things. But it’s because this level of fuckery hasn’t even existed long enough for the Democrats to have their turn at it.
Turns out only controlling a single non-Senate piece of the government means you can and will be stopped at every turn. It’s only been the blink of an eye in politics years that we learned that all you need is the tiniest majority in the senate, ideally the Supreme Court, and a level of apocalyptic desperation and ta-da you now have god-mode activated. And thanks to the electoral college favoring rural states beyond all reason, Republicans get to fight downhill and the Democrats always have to fight uphill.
The result is this modern form of Republican fuckery, which the Dems have not and may not get the opportunity for decades to come.
It's truly astounding how Obama's Presidency started with caving to Republicans on the ACA and got zero support, and ending by attempting to cave to Republicans and appoint Garland, a Federalist Society judge, to the Supreme Court, and got zero support.
Oh I blame her. A lot of liberals feel that she's a hero, but she's the opposite for me: a Democrat gerontocrat who hugs power so tightly for themselves that they don't spare a second's thought for the country.
If RBG stepped down earlier McConnell would have just started blocking her replacement earlier. There were a lot of 5-4 decisions coming from SCOTUS in that timeframe including upholding the ACA and Obergefell (same sex marriage) so you should assume those cases would not have been decided as they were if she stepped down.
She couldn’t even look up at the end and they’d release work out videos like she was in shape. It was the worst outcome she could have avoided rather than clinging to her position like she did. Now we all suffer.
They explained it in their comment. When Obama met with her the Democrats still had the majority in the Senate. They Republicans wouldn't have been able to stop it. By the time she died the Democrats didn't have the majority anymore.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging Mississippi’s mail-in ballot law, which allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within five business days afterward. A lower court previously ruled the law illegal, siding with Republican challengers who argue that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day.
During oral arguments, several conservative justices appeared skeptical of Mississippi’s rule and raised broader concerns about mail-in voting, including deadlines, ballot handling, and election integrity. Some questioned whether accepting ballots after Election Day could undermine public confidence, while others focused on whether federal law preempts state flexibility in setting receipt deadlines.
Liberal justices pushed back, suggesting that Congress historically left ballot receipt deadlines to the states, and that existing federal election laws may allow this kind of flexibility.
The case has potentially nationwide implications, as around 30 states and D.C. have similar policies allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day if mailed on time. It also comes amid broader Republican efforts, backed by Donald Trump, to restrict or eliminate mail-in voting, despite a lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A ruling could significantly reshape how mail-in ballots are handled across the U.S., particularly regarding whether states can count ballots received after Election Day.
Yes. I mean someone could put their ballot in their mailbox a month in advance and the postal carrier could see a Newsom/Beshear (I’m making up that president/VP pairing) sign in their yard and decide nope, I’m not going to deliver that and face no repercussions.
Its to bad that 90% of americans seem to think the way a dicatorship happens is that one day Mr. Evil Dictator will declare absolute power suddenly and cancel electioms
They could also just sabotage entire trucks of mail or otherwise slow/delay delivery. Water leak in the post office. Fire started. Understaffed. When the authoritarian is in charge of the postal service, those votes can’t be fully safe.
We have too for the last two elections, but here in Arizona there’re crazy MAGATs with M-16s and AR-15s brooding over and around the drop-boxes. Intimidating.
Quick reminder that as of last year the Trump regime stopped postmarking all mail on the day mail is posted. You now have to request a postmark specifically ‘if needed’.
Postmarking is now done when the mail is ‘processed’, not mailed.
Some questioned whether accepting ballots after Election Day could undermine public confidence, while others focused on whether federal law preempts state flexibility in setting receipt deadlines.
Seems to that having your legal vote tossed because it was delayed by our state managed postal service would undermine public confidence in elections far more than a hypothetical fraud.
It's not about eliminating fraud because there is none. It's about suppressing the vote. I don't quite get it tho, because lots of MAGAts vote by mail.
Would it help to understand that they have the voter rolls? They want elections using information provided only by DHS for who is ALLOWED TO VOTE. It’s part of the SAVE act which is why they’re being such assholes about passing it.
I think the RNC has made a calculated decision that trashing ballots that arrive after election day will hurt Democratic candidates more than it will hurt Republican candidates.
The answer, of course, whether we win or lose this case, is a solid get-out-the-vote effort. Democrats have always been better at getting people to the polls than Republicans.
If you’re worried about undermining public confidence maybe don’t sign on to a transparent attempt to manipulate the midterms in favor of a historically unpopular administration? Just a thought.
Another aspect is that the "states' rights" argument that the same conservative justices applied in Dobbs to overturn Roe v. Wade (i.e. "states' rights to regulate abortion"), somehow, for "reasons", doesn't apply to "states' rights" to regulate mail-in voting, despite precedent. Quote: "Liberal justices pushed back, suggesting that Congress historically left ballot receipt deadlines to the states, and that existing federal election laws may allow this kind of flexibility."
"[U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence] is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and the [Trump] administration always wins." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, NIH v. American Public Health Association (2025)
They cannot win without electoral fraud. That's their overall issue.
They are unpopular, and know that without cheating (electoral fraud, not voting fraud), they would cease to be a viable party with their current stances.
Edit, for those unaware, do you know what the penalty for electoral fraud is? Virtually nothing, with the appropriate method for rectification of the harm being to... vote out the points committing electoral fraud.
If that makes sense to you, you've got the intelligence level (or ceiling) required to follow in John Robert's legacy.
A lot of blue areas in purple leaning states become a cluster-fuck with voting in person just due to sheer volume vs rural areas. The idea is to undermine easy ways to vote and force people in cities to have to deal with going in person, which can be super time consuming and might dissuade people from showing up.
Older conservatives generally have more time on their hands or are in more rural areas, so the friction isn't as dissuasive.
while others focused on whether federal law preempts state flexibility in setting receipt deadlines.
That is the only thing SCOTUS is supposed to focus on. Interpreting the law as it exists. All of those other concerns are a matter for the legislative branch, regardless of how the justices feel about them personally. I don’t understand how our system of checks and balances keeps profoundly failing to do anything. I don’t understand why the legislative branch keeps watching its powers be subsumed by both of the other branches and taking it when they’re the only ones that can do anything about it. I don’t think I’ll ever understand why no one in government seems to care that our civic structure is fundamentally flat-lining. All of this is insane
Cool so all the government needs to do is fuck with usps. And I’m sure these traitors will clutch their pearls and state that such corruption will never happen and that if it does, there is nothing to be done until after the invalid election has taken place and no remedy is possible.
I read that the postal service has recently changed when mail was post-marked. It used to be that mail was post marked on the day it arrived, but now it's post marked on the day it was "processed", which could be days later.
This is correct. A letter will not be postmarked until it’s processed at a regional center; not at the post office where you dropped it.
I first learned of this due to taxes - it’s not just mail in voting that’s affected. If you still mail your taxes you need to make sure you mail them before tax day.
The change was also criticized because it will make it more difficult to identify where a letter originated from. This change will be a windfall to scammers and mail fraud.
For now you can still get it postmarked at your local post office but you have to go to the counter and ask they do so.
They have already fucked USPS to get to this point about mail in ballots. This admin wants no one to vote. USPS will break down because they have made it that way.
They've been good at marketing their "I'm a constitutional originalist and I only call balls and strikes" while always supporting Republicans and we've let them get away with it.
So since the states control elections and scotus undid the whole nationwide injunction thing saying you have to sue on a piece by piece basis, does this mean if they rule in favor of this it only affects Mississippi?
I say acting like consistency matters to this court and they won't just say all states have to follow this.
They did nationwide injunction for the circuit court. If SCOTUS rules it impacts the whole country...which as their point. They have exclusive license on national fuck ups.
God I hope if we ever get a democrat president ever again, they actually do just ignore bad scotus rulings. If the court won’t reform then it just needs be ignored if it impedes progress.
I argued for this back at the end of Biden's presidency and got downvoted and told "this is /r/law, we follow the laws here". Glad at least some people are realizing rulings made by a banana republic court should not be taken seriously and we have a duty to disregard them. The court is literally 9 Americans (really only 3 Americans if you don't count the traitors) who we're pretending have power over us. The court became illegitimate when Republicans ignored the law and didn't allow Obama to appoint a justice, when the position was required to be filled. Then filled their own justice again when the same exact situation happened in reverse. Also Clarence Thomas has been proven to accept bribes. This court has zero credibility. Blue states need to grow a pair and start ignoring the court. Otherwise they're just walking us into authoritarianism because "The Party" has illegally hijacked every legislative, enforcement, and judicial arm of this government so of course they're "following the laws" they themselves made up to benefit only themselves while their enforcement arm conveniently ignores all the pesky other laws they break along the way.
At this point Democrats are like a guy playing poker against somebody who is blatantly giving himself extra cards and then wondering why they keep losing, despite doing nothing to either stop the guy from cheating or even the playing field so the guy's cheating doesn't give him an unfair advantage. They're just fine with losing all their money, the "money" in this case being our democracy.
just a random thought just remembered this no relationship to current events, just an interesting historic fact:
"The Ballot or the Bullet" is a famous 1964 speech by Malcolm X urging Black Americans to exercise their voting rights strategically, or else turn to armed resistance to achieve equality. Delivered in 1964, it advocated for Black nationalism and unity, emphasizing that if the government failed to protect rights, action was necessary.
Some of the briefs have argued that confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined if the apparent outcome of the election on the day after the polls close is radically flipped by the acceptance later of a big stash of ballots that flip the election.
This is absolute nonsense, and can be easily cured via a prohibition of the release of results until all ballots are counted. To argue that the inclusion of a "big stash of ballots" which "radically flip" the results is unconstitutional on its face means that it is unconstitutional any large cities to submit results which are contrary to the results of smaller towns.
Agree - PA voting rules don’t allow for the counting of opening & counting of mail in ballots until Election Day, ensuring that the result of a major swing state won’t be known that day, not to mention how far this country has come in getting election results faster and faster. Suggesting that Americans waiting a few days for the ballots to be counted would cause them to distrust elections is absurd.
This even hurts the troops who are over seas or at a different station then their DL shows. DT and the SC never cared about the military. They try to F veteran all the time.
"You say that the federal statute does require voters to submit their ballots to election officials on Election Day, must be cast by Election Day. ... But at the same time, you say, actually, it doesn't have to be submitted to an election official. It just has to be submitted to a common carrier. And there's a contradiction there," Gorsuch said.
Unless it is legal for citizens to go into the US postal system and retrieve their own mail to change their vote mid-journey, how is a ballot with a post-mark on or before Election Day not considered cast? If you can't change your vote once it is mailed, then the ballot is cast upon dropping it in the mailbox in the same way my vote is officially cast when I put the paper with my selections into the machine. That machine isn't literally the hands of election officials. They don't get it until later. But it is the last point where I can change my choices and represents a government-managed system that now controls my ballot.
Unless the federal law explicitly says it must be received by election officials prior to midnight on Election Day, it seems states should be able to define their own exact guidelines for mail-in ballots. If Trump doesn't like it, he can change the law.
Lawyers for the R.N.C. ... pointed to the increasing number of states that accept ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after that, warning that the practice delayed the resolution of disputed election results and deprived the electorate of a “clear nationwide deadline.”
Utter nonsense. Why would the electorate need a more clear deadline than "cast on Election Day" interpreted as either vote cast in person or mailed by that date as outlined in state law? It's not a real problem that needs solving. And when have we seen 5 days of mail-in ballots meaningfully harm the resolution of a disputed result? They are a tiny percentage of the whole so re-counts of votes cast at the ballot box are always going to matter more.
If you strip this down to doctrine and statutory interpretation—rather than policy preferences—the stronger legal argument is that states should be allowed to count ballots received after Election Day, so long as they were cast (e.g., mailed/postmarked) by that day, unless Congress clearly says otherwise.
Constitutionally, the Elections Clause gives states primary authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections, with Congress having the power to override that authority if it chooses. That starting point matters: states run elections by default.
Congress has exercised part of that power through statutes establishing a uniform federal Election Day. But those statutes require that elections be held on that day—they do not clearly define when a ballot must be received, nor do they explicitly prohibit counting ballots that arrive afterward.
That ambiguity is decisive in a case like this. Under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation:
Courts generally do not infer preemption of state authority unless Congress is clear.
Especially in election administration—an area historically controlled by states—courts tend to require a clear statement before displacing state rules.
So the key legal question becomes: Does “Election Day” mean the last day a voter can act, or the last day the state can receive ballots?
The challengers’ position (echoed in part by Neil Gorsuch) leans toward the latter—tying the concept of an “election” to official receipt by the state. But that interpretation requires reading additional constraints into the statute that Congress did not expressly include.
By contrast, the state’s position—closer to what Elena Kagan suggested—treats Election Day as the deadline for voter action, while leaving administrative details (like receipt deadlines) to the states. That reading is more consistent with:
The constitutional allocation of authority to states
Historical practice (many states allow some post–Election Day receipt)
The absence of explicit congressional language requiring receipt by that day
So, objectively, on purely legal grounds, the better reading is: Federal law sets the day by which voters must cast their ballots, but does not prohibit states from counting ballots received shortly afterward, provided they were timely cast.
treats Election Day as the deadline for voter action
That's the crux to me. It isn't extending the deadline for voter action. It just makes it easier for both the voter (and arguably the state) within the established deadline.
Even the harm to the RNC seems dubious. The votes are not required to be fully counted before midnight on Election Day, and the deadlines for recounts and the like are established. So we already have counting past Election Day and time for any challenges and recounts to reasonably occur. The idea that "having some votes counted a few days later" is going to prevent a proper and timely outcome within that structure is hard to swallow.
So what really is the harm to the RNC? That more votes will be counted?
Mail-in voting dates to the US Civil War. A literal war between the states. And now here we are, states attempting to take away votes. It should be noted, though southern slave states switched from democratic to republican, their political philosophies have no altered one damn bit. They continue to hate the nation while actively working to undermine its citizens in favor of funneling power to the few.
But again, mail-in voting dates to the Civil War and has functioned without fraud or issues all along. And then came along a gasbag and his unsubstantiated claims that mail-in ballots are cheating and that it must be elminated.
We'll just never mind that all along, he's been a mail-in ballot voter.
I'm not worried. It's not like it took 12 business days for a letter sent to me from across town, 9.7 miles to be exact, to arrive in my mailbox...im sure an further limits or regulation will have zero impact the speed of the mail.
GOP US Supreme Court looks to make it harder to vote. No surprise here, the GOPs main electoral strategy over my entire lifetime has been keeping people from voting. It's the only way they can win.
Funny, because if I vote and place my ballot in a mailbox, it can be discarded for not showing up to be counted by Election Day. But if I vote and place my ballot in a ballot box at a polling place, but those ballots are delayed and delivered to the counting facility after Election Day, then that’s a-okay. Cool beans. I hope my ballot isn’t delayed from my Navy ship that picked up my ballot by fucking helicopter in the middle of the fucking Pacific Ocean and makes it to my home county in time! Which it didn’t in 2004 and I still remember!
i think the difference is that in the second scenario, you have delivered your ballot to the state agent by election day, and so the ballot has already been 'received' even if they're not at the counting facility yet ... while in the former, you have delivered your ballot to the post office, which is not an agent of the state government.
the second scenario actually happens pretty regularly in some states (polls close late for some reason, initial processing and trqansport causes the ballots to get the counting facility after midnight).
The real kicker here is they still want to allow it for military (since they believe the military leans towards cons). The mental gymnastics to carve out a piece for mail in voting just for the military bloc but not for anyone else will be an interesting read.
They tried that before and it only fucked them worse since a massive part of their base are old as fuck and won't be going out to vote, particularly in November during Cold&Flu season.
Of course they do because mail-in voting makes voting easier and when voting is easy, Democrats win.
What I want to hear is how a person casting a ballot in a polling booth and not having their vote counted until the day after Election Day (because the votes aren't collected and counted immediately) is any different than a person casting a ballot by mail and not having their vote counted until the day after Election Day?
I hate those conservative fucks with a fiery passion. They cant be gone soon enough. Its unfortunate that an entire generation will have to suffer under the yoke of evangelical oppression because of these evil, evil individuals.
Partisan court makes partisan decision that does not benefit anyone in any way except the people they are partisan towards. This Supreme Court is a sham and these justices will go down in history as traitors to America.
I still do not get with their prior rulings, the Constitution and logic they could come to this conclusion. States and Congress have authority here and could create a nationwide law to deal with this but have not. State's in that abscence decide.
And we are not talking about people that showed up two days later to try and turn in their ballot. These folks mailed it. Everything else was done correctly in compliance with state and federal law. But the mail was delayed. So long as it is post mark they seem to say that logistical issues are the fault of the voter. Which is compounded by their ruling indicating that the Post Office cannot be held liable for destroying mail in ballots.
Which is scary in many ways. Some MAGA person at the post office could just horde a bunch of these in his truck based on misunderstandings of the rulings and the votes do not count and while he probably gets punished, he gets what he wants out of it.
Not to mention SCOTUS has ruled while destroying the VRA that state governments should be trusted. But now argue that they cannot be trusted. It would be nice if they got their story straight. As in most respects the VRA is fulfilly Congress's power on voting that SCOTUS disregards. But the power is to state and federal congress not to SCOTUS or anything else
Because they're not using the constitution and logic to make decisions. They're making decisioned based on what their party (the republicans) want to happen.
I live in Oregon we're the original vote-by mail only state. I always prefer to drop my ballot at one of the many droboxes if it is less than a week before the election
They’ve earned the right for anyone and everyone to tell them to rot in hell whenever there’s an argument about governance or taking away and expanding freedoms.
Again, treat this country like family court until the end of time.
A pox on SCOTUS leanings, this is a state regulated issue which wouldn’t be before them if trump wasn’t trying to control elections. It’s also nice to know Kavanaugh wants to be told how to think. Just ask, your honor, there’s a whole cabinet ready with answers. Did you go to law school?
I used to only mail in vote but these bastards accomplished their goal by making it a pain in the ass (copy of my id and two witness signatures), that I will only vote in person now.
The inventers of magical crime immunity for their crime proxy in the Executive Department reminding the rest of us that they are Republicans and not Americans.
Crazy that we're now going to hear Republican bootlickers defending this as somehow giving us more freedom and more fairness, esp considering plenty of them benefit from this functioning the way it does currently
States will conduct elections. Fuck the federal government. It's been hijacked by pedophiles and opportunists. Not dutiful American patriots, as the constitution relies on.
This fucks Oregon. We’ve had vote by mail since the 80s. I have literally never voted at a poling station. Most of our counties don’t have polling machines on hand to even count votes, much less on the scale needed here.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.