# How big of a deal is today’s Supreme Court decision to allow PA vote count? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 20, 2020, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373 "2020-10-20T01:22:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/21 "2020-10-20T04:49:11Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > 4 of the 5 conservative justices. Or is everyone calling Roberts a liberal now? Liberal may be a stretch, but he’s certainly angling for the “swing justice” role that Kennedy had. The limelight role. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/22 "2020-10-20T04:51:19Z")
No. The case has been decided. Assuming she’s confirmed, she can’t re-open it. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/23 "2020-10-20T05:47:52Z")
Anyone want to speculate as to the root of the disagreement? The high court took two weeks to respond to the applications for stays of the PA court ruling, which [SCOTUSBlog tells](https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/supreme-court-leaves-in-place-order-requiring-pennsylvania-to-count-absentee-ballots-after-election-day/) me is unusually long for an emergency case. (The orders basically read, the application is denied, but Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would have granted the application.) ~Max ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/24 "2020-10-20T11:22:39Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Was this a conservative vs liberal justice ruling? Yes. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > If so, was this transparently partisan? Like “allowing this is better for democrats, disallowing this is better for republicans” and that was the basis of the ruling? Since all they did was refuse to take up the GOP’s request for a stay, there’s no ruling other than “we’re not considering this case.” What makes it clearly partisan is that the four (soon to be five) conservative Justices wanted to grant the requested stay. Despite its being a state Supreme Court interpreting state law in what would normally be a fairly prosaic decision, with no Constitutional issues involved. IANAL, but AFAICT, there’s nothing close to a legitimate reason for SCOTUS to give this case the time of day, but the conservative bloc wanted to take it up and stop PA from allowing ballots postmarked by 11/3 and received by 11/6 from being counted. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Or was there some sort of conservative legal framework vs liberal legal framework at play which could explain the ruling without being naked partisanship? State’s rights, if we’re in Opposite World. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Because if not, and this is purely partisanship, then basically allowing partisan judges to rule on election law is fucking terrifying. Let’s just say that until yesterday, I was pretty sanguine about things, because in fact Trump **doesn’t** have the authority to reach in and mess with the states as they count their ballots. The Presidential election really IS 51 separate state elections. But the Supreme Court can. And yesterday’s ruling showed that four - soon to be five - conservative Justices are willing to do exactly that. And of course, GOP lawyers all over the country are ready and waiting to file court challenges to the states’ counts, and if they lose in state courts or lower Federal courts, they’ll appeal to the Supreme Court. So now? Let’s just hope it’s such a blowout that challenges don’t stand a chance of reversing the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/25 "2020-10-20T11:40:49Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Or was there some sort of conservative legal framework vs liberal legal framework at play which could explain the ruling without being naked partisanship? The idea going around the conservative election law world is that where the US Constitution delegates authority to “the legislature” of a state to make laws on federal elections, no other state institutions have any right to be involved. The state courts can’t review the law for compliance with the state constitution, and if the state has an initiative process, it cannot be used to make or amend those kinds of laws. This was rejected in a 5-4 decision in 2015, but there’s probably now a 5-3 majority (soon to be 6-3 majority) going the other way. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/26 "2020-10-20T15:49:00Z")
What was the reasoning behind the 4 votes to overturn the lower court decision? I’m curious how a conservative justice rationalizes stepping all over the authority states have to run their own elections. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/27 "2020-10-20T15:51:29Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > What was the reasoning behind the 4 votes to overturn the lower court decision? I’m curious how a conservative justice rationalizes stepping all over the authority states have to run their own elections. - IOKWIBR It’s OK When It Benefits Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/28 "2020-10-20T16:04:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > It’s huge for whichever side loses PA on Election Night. Because now they know the deficit that they need to overcome in the 3 days to come. If your side lost by two hundred thousand votes, now it’s time to manufacture two hundred thousand votes. I realize people have been all over this but I don’t think anyone has made this point: This thinking assumes that the legitimate uncounted mail-in ballots will be roughly equal for each party. By all reports, that isn’t true. Democratic voters are voting absentee by a ratio of 2:1 or better. It’s quite possible that Trump will be ahead by a couple hundred thousand votes on Nov 3 and still lose the election in PA. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/29 "2020-10-20T16:05:19Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > It’s huge for whichever side loses PA on Election Night. Because now they know the deficit that they need to overcome in the 3 days to come. If your side lost by two hundred thousand votes, now it’s time to manufacture two hundred thousand votes. > > Since this is mail-in voting within one state, it doesn’t take 3 days for mail to get from one part of the state to another. 1-2 days would suffice. Moderating: This is obvious trolling. Official warning. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/30 "2020-10-20T16:17:41Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Moderating: This is obvious trolling. Official warning. Check your PMs. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2020, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/31 "2020-10-20T16:20:14Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > What was the reasoning behind the 4 votes to overturn the lower court decision? I’m curious how a conservative justice rationalizes stepping all over the authority states have to run their own elections. I was wondering about that myself. I saw a brief comment on twitter that neither side offered an opinion and I was curious about that, too, if true. There probably aren’t many here less qualified than I am to comment on SC matters but isn’t part of the purpose behind written opinions that future legislation will know the court’s reasoning behind their decisions? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2020, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/32 "2020-10-21T01:34:52Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > What was the reasoning behind the 4 votes to overturn the lower court decision? I’m curious how a conservative justice rationalizes stepping all over the authority states have to run their own elections. We don’t know for sure, because they didn’t have to say. But I think Lord Feldon may well be on the right track when he says: > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The idea going around the conservative election law world is that where the US Constitution delegates authority to “the legislature” of a state to make laws on federal elections, no other state institutions have any right to be involved. The state courts can’t review the law for compliance with the state constitution, and if the state has an initiative process, it cannot be used to make or amend those kinds of laws. You can get there with an extremely literalist reading of the second paragraph of Article II, Section 1: > Each State shall appoint, **in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct** , a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress But you’ve got to make that bolded phrase do some serious heavy lifting, if you’re going to say that the whim of the legislature at any given moment can overrule even the state Constitution on any matter having to do with the choosing of electors. At that point, you might as well just let the legislature choose the electors directly, and have the popular vote - if any - be merely advisory. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2020, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/33 "2020-10-21T03:04:09Z")
Mark Joseph Stern is assuming [SCOTUS invalidating the 2020 election results is basically a done deal](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/supreme-court-pennsylvania-election-late-ballots.html): > Take a step back from the legal dispute here and consider the broader implications of what four justices did on Monday. A mere 15 days out from a presidential election, these justices tried to stop a state Supreme Court from safeguarding the right to vote by enforcing its state’s constitution. Basic principles of federalism counsel against federal intervention in a state court’s interpretation of its own election laws. Yet four justices would leap in at the last minute to block the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s efforts on the basis of extreme theories that go against decades of precedent. Their actions evince a startling hostility to voting rights and fair elections. Democrats who [celebrated](https://www.vox.com/2020/10/19/21524177/supreme-court-voting-rights-pennsylvania-republican-boockvar-amy-coney-barrett) Monday’s decision are either naive or delusional. It was a fleeting victory that portends a crushing blow to democracy the moment Barrett dons her robe. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2020, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/34 "2020-10-21T16:00:20Z")
Yeah. The Votemaster this morning observed that four “originalists” on the court voted to ignore the overt wording of the constitution that states run their own elections. They have just refuted any claim that they follow the explicit wording. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2020, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/35 "2020-10-22T10:52:36Z")
Not sure who the Votemaster is, or what wording he’s referring to, but as I said above, the argument the four ‘originalists’ apparently would make is likely based on a hyper-literalist reading of the Constitutional passage I bolded, saying that the state _legislatures_ determine how the Presidential electors are chosen. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2020, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/36 "2020-10-23T16:23:20Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Not sure who the Votemaster is, Votemaster is one of two guys who run this site: > **[ElectoralVote](https://www.electoral-vote.com/)** > > Track the election with a red/blue map of the US updated daily using the latest state polls. It has a lot of commentary on current politics with a decided liberal slant. Updated every day, at least during election season. I find it interesting reading, although conservatives may not. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2020, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/37 "2020-10-27T01:05:24Z")
Looks like [Kavanaugh’s all in](https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1320873994032205824) with state **legislatures** having the final word on the rules for voting for President. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2020, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/38 "2020-10-27T15:50:25Z")
Yep. It’s increasingly clear that the Courts could get involved in several state challenges to the legitimacy of the elections. It would not surprise me at all if Trump’s lawyers invented a reason to stop counting votes in states where he’s losing and have the Court rubber stamp it somehow. It is not blindly administering justice; it’s a politically inclined bench of right wing activists. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2020, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/39 "2020-10-27T16:05:37Z")
Setting all talk of fairness, ethics, honor or morality aside, isn’t it technically true - in the Constitutional sense - that state legislatures can indeed override the will of voters? (A Republican state legislature could award the electoral votes to Trump even if the state voted blue) So if the 5 conservatives on SCOTUS voted that way - they wouldn’t be legally or technically wrong. They’d be upholding something abhorrent, but they’d be fully correct. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2020, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373/40 "2020-10-27T16:12:20Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > isn’t it technically true - in the Constitutional sense - that state legislatures can indeed override the will of voters? The Constitutional phrase is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”. The question is whether “a manner the Legislature may direct” is constrained by limits in the state’s constitution (and therefore would be interpretable by the state courts, perhaps could be vetoed by the governor, etc.) or whether the legislature could literally ignore its own state constitution and “direct” something differently (literally against its own laws). Kavanaugh is arguing for that hyper-literalist view (that state courts can’t interpret the laws its own legislature makes on the matter against the state’s laws and constitution), while Roberts is arguing that federal courts can’t get involved with interpreting the state legislature, but the state supreme court can (as part of the “manner”). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-big-of-a-deal-is-today-s-supreme-court-decision-to-allow-pa-vote-count/923373.md?page=3)