Absentee Voting: Supreme Court Acts on Emergency Applications from Alabama and Rhode Island

-
Photo by Element5 Digital from Pexels

Photo by Element5 Digital from Pexels

States are implementing new voting policies in light of the pandemic, increasing the opportunities for people to vote by mail, or by absentee voting. Some states require absentee voters to submit additional forms of verification, such as a copy of a photo ID and signatures of witnesses or a notary. 

Given that health officials recommend social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, voters brought lawsuits against several states’ witnessing/notarizing requirements. Federal appeals courts agreed with voters in two states, Alabama and Rhode Island, ruling against the states’ witnessing/notarizing requirements.

In each case, supporters of the witnessing requirements applied to the Supreme Court asking for an emergency order that would allow the state to keep the requirements. In the case arising from Alabama, the Secretary of State and the State of Alabama itself filed the Supreme Court application for relief. In Rhode Island, it was the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Rhode Island who filed with the High Court. 

The Supreme Court treated the two cases differently based on who filed the applications. In the case out of Alabama, the Court granted the emergency stay, reinstituting the witnessing requirements. However, in the case from Rhode Island, the Court rejected the application for a stay, noting that it would not follow the Alabama ruling because the requesting parties (the Republication National Committee and Rhode Island Republican Party) did not have the same interests in defending the laws of the state as the state itself would have.

Read more at SCOTUSblog.



fromSubscript Law Blog | Subscript Lawhttps://https://ift.tt/2FAKVDE
Subscript Law
4 Curtis Terrace Montclair
NJ 07042
(201) 840-8182
https://ift.tt/2oX7jPi

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

California v. Texas (Argument November 10, 2020)

-
Image
Argument: November 10, 2020 Decision: TBA Petitioners’ Brief: California, et al. Respondents’ Brief: Texas, et al. Respondents’ Brief: Neill Hurley and John Nantz Respondents’ Brief: United States, et al. Opinion Below: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals   The Supreme Court Will Determine the Fate of the Affordable Care Act...Again Several individuals and a group of GOP-led states are leading another fight to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (ACA). They are attacking the Individual Mandate as invalid and then arguing the rest of the ACA falls with it.  The Supreme Court will hear the case on November 10, 2020 joined by its new conservative-leaning justice, Amy Coney Barrett. Background Congress designed the ACA to provide all Americans affordable access to health insurance. Without getting rid of the private insurers, however, the government had to help them keep premiums down.  The Individual Mandate was designed to control costs in the marketplace by requiring eve
Read more

Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

-
Image
Argument: March 3, 2020 Petitioner Brief: Seila Law Respondent Brief: CFPB (Supporting Seila Law) Amicus Curiae Brief: Paul Clement (defending CFPB’s position) Decision: TBA Opinion Below: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court to determine fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Two years after the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed a massive piece of consumer protection legislation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in 2010, stating its goal “to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices.” The vote passed in both houses of Congress largely along party lines.  As part of this comprehensive legislation, Congress created a new federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is an executive agency responsible for regulating providers of a wide range of consumer financial services, as well as enforcing federal consumer financial protection law
Read more

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

-
Image
Argument: January 22, 2020 Petitioner Brief: Kendra Espinoza, et al. Respondent Brief: Montana Department of Revenue, et al. Decision: TBA Court below: Supreme Court of the State of Montana Montana faces Establishment Clause questions over a tax credit program Montana established a tax credit program that allows people to donate to a scholarship fund for students attending private schools. In return, the taxpayer receives a matching tax credit of up to $150. The scholarship fund provides scholarships to private school students, including those who attend religious private schools.      Montana’s Department of Revenue was tasked with administering the tax credit program. When it began working to carry out the program, it realized the program — as written by Montana’s legislature — came into conflict with the Montana Constitution.  The Montana Constitution includes a provision called the “Blaine Amendment.” The Blaine Amendment prohibits the state from using any state fund
Read more