'No Pandemic Exception To The Constitution': Court Rejects Minn. Ballot Extension

[JonLP24]

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with Minnesota Republicans in a dispute on mail-in ballots, deeming that absentee votes received by mail after 8 p.m. and in person after 3 p.m. should be separated from other ballots.

The move means that the fate of those later-received ballots will likely fall in the lap of another court, which could eventually declare the votes invalid.

This ruling reverses an extension by Secretary of State Steve Simon to accommodate voters who may have been impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.

The ruling came down to a vote of 2-1 on the three-person panel.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/29/929341533/no-pandemic-exception-to-the-constitution-court-rejects-minn-ballot-extension

[C_U_L8R]

1. No 8pm deadline in the Constitution either

And what about years and year of absentee ballot precedent... especially the military? This looks like the work of unqualified Trump judges.

[pat_k]

2. The game plan. . .

I think the game plan is for SCOTUS to strike down every state law that allows ballots arriving after election day to be counted.

Indications:
1. The decision in Wisconsin.
2. The assertion that the Feds, not the state courts, have authority over state election law.
3. Decisions in PA and NC that they explicitly said could be "revisited" after the election (when ACB can join in -- she sat out those decisions because she "didn't have time to review the briefs" ).

As absurd as it is, I think it is also possible that they are hanging onto the notion of ultimately disallowing the counting of any votes after election day that might "flip the outcome." Kavanaugh:

“Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election,”

And this is echoed by Trump's "good and proper" to make election day results "official" -- no matter how many votes remain to be counted.

Obviously, there can be no "flipping" an outcome that has yet to be determined based on a full count. They know the assertion is insane, but it worked in Bush v. Gore (i.e., stop counting legitimate votes because it could "flip" Bush's so-called "victory" ). With six on the court to endorse it, they seem game to go for Bush v. Gore on steroids.

If they are crazy enough to try this there is a remedy, but it depends on winning the House and Senate. On Jan 6, the date of the counting of the electors, they object to, and throw out the electors from any state that halts counting in response to court rulings. It doesn't matter what SCOTUS says. When it comes to determining the legality of the appointment of electors, it is up to Congress.

Congress utterly failed to do their duty in 2000 and toss out the electors appointed pursuant to the incomplete, and therefore unlawful election, in FL (as Justice Breyer essentially instructed them to do in his dissent). They cannot fail to preserve democracy this time if the black-robbed traitors attempt to pull off a coup again.

And the NEXT step would be to impeach the traitors on the court for attempting to overturn the will of the people. If you didn't read it back in 2001, read "None Dare Call It Treason" (Nation article or later book)

[joshcryer]

8. This is precisely why this thing has to be a landslide.

They have the courts packed since Bush's nominees. They denied so many of Obama's nominees. It's insane how corrupt they have been. If it's not a blowout, on election night, they will quietly overturn election after election all throughout the country. Millions of ballots will be disappeared. They really don't care about democracy. They only care about winning and power.

It must be stressed that theft is their only way forward.

[Nexus2]

3. When it seems to or can spun to support whatever the GOP scheme is the Constitution is

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2020, 05:38 AM - Edit history (2)

perfect, eternal and unchangeable, but when it thwarts or slow one of the GOP's schemes its, at best, a list of strongly worded suggestions.

[pdxflyboy]

4. Say again, please?

[BainsBane]

5. He means

They pick and choose which parts of the constitution matter to them.

[Nexus2]

6. Post edited for clarity. Better now?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

7. Turn them in NOW, Minnesotans!

Act like the country's survival depends on it... and it might!

[malaise]

9. Just watched CNN

The Supremes will overrule this

[Buckeyeblue]

10. I thought federal courts only get involved in state issues if there is a question about federal law

Elections should be state issues decided by the state. Ultimately, that's why Gore v. Bush was a bad decision. The court should have deferred to the states decision.

Now, if there is a question that state law violates the voting rights act, then it is appropriate to involve the federal courts.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Sounds Like Originalist Nonsense

The framers didn't mention something that they knew nothing about because germ theory wasn't even developed yet?
I thought these originalists were into mind reading the dead framers.
If they really could do it, they would know the framers were fully ignorant of the existence of pandemic spread by air transmission.
They couldn't have added a provision for something they didn't know existed.
This is convenient, intellectually lazy thought.

[abqtommy]

12. What does the pandemic have to do with the criminal disabling of the USPS? asking for a

curious friend...