The nearest mailbox happens to be immediately adjacent to the drop box. (I checked out mailbox locations online long ago because I walk everywhere, and the nearest P.O. branch is 1.5 miles away.) The drop boxes are about a mile from my place (different directions, of course). One is in a popular supermarket’s parking lot. The other is in a church parking lot. Both are on main thoroughfares. And they’re drive-up or walk-up, so you don’t have to get out of your car.
How about the idea that the Constitution, in setting this requirement, presumes that the legislatures will adhere to the limitations established in their own state constitutions?
My nearest mailbox is on the side of my house. Most don’t have to go much farther than the end of their driveway.
I went to a decent amount of effort in my voting, where I had to drive 12.2 miles to get to the place where I could either early vote or drop off my ballot.
It would have been easier to just open up my door and put it in my mailbox. If I had wanted to use an “official” mailbox(one of the blue boxes), there is one less than a hundred feet from my door.
I don’t know, for some, going to a drop box may be as easy or easier than a mailbox, such as your situation. For others, probably the majority of others, mailing is far more convenient.
I dropped off my ballot at a drop box (at the county board of elections). Technically, my county has two drop box locations, but the second one is right across the street from the BoE. And yes, it was inconvenient for me to go downtown to drop if off, but I’ve heard all of the Trump administration’s talk of messing with the Post Office, and didn’t want to take any chances.
It’s great that you can mail safely and securely from your own home, and I imagine other many others do so as well. Is that the majority though? It isn’t here. As I said, more than half of Washington voters use the drop boxes, according to our Secretary of State.
I’m actually kind of wondering why you can’t mail safely from your own home. I live in a city and I pass multiple mailboxes during my normal day, so I generally use those ( and even if I’m not going out, the closest one is on the next block) but if my mail carrier is delivering to my house, he or she will pick-up outgoing mail - I think they are required to as long as the box doesn’t have a lock. I don’t typically leave it there because it won’t get picked up if I’m not getting a delivery ( since I don’t have a box with a flag for outgoing mail)
My take is that the Supreme Court reserves the right to review cases arising under state election laws that effect federal elections. Normally the federal government defers to state courts on decisions arising under state law, this is an exception to the rule.
You’re missing the fact that the recently appointed 9th Justice will likely side with the other 4 conservatives and future rulings on things like this will probably go the way of “Some votes don’t count - and we know which ones those are, wink wink”
Because four justices voted that the federal courts can review decisions of the state supreme court on voting rights under state laws. Normally the state courts have the final say on state law, but this decision suggests that at least four justices think that the federal courts have jurisdiction to review the state court decisions. Since state constitutions typically have more express provisions guaranteeing the right to vote, compared to the federal constitution, that opens up arguments that the federal courts can restrict the right to vote even if the state courts have upheld it under the state constitution.
Since the Democrats in this election are pushing for as many as possible to vote, that ruling could have worrisome implications, as GOP operatives apply in federal courts to restrict voting decisions by state officials, as in the upcoming challenge in Texas.
And now, that 4-4 split could become 5-4 in favour of federal court jurisdiction…
It opens up the argument that the federal courts can restrict the right to vote under the state constitution even if the state courts have upheld it under the state constitution. The more conservative legal theory I see - based on Gorsuch and Alito’s recent dissent - is based on Art II sec 1 cl 2 (the elections clause), not so much a plain theory eminating from the supremacy clause. Moore v. Circasta, 592 U.S. ___, 2-3 (2020) (Gorsuch, dissenting).
"Everyone agrees, too, that the North Carolina Constitution expressly vests all legislative power in the General Assembly, not the Board or anyone else. […]
Besides, even assuming the North Carolina General Assembly could delegate its Elections Clause authority to other officials, its representatives contend before us that it has not authorized the deadline extension here, and understandably so. […]"
Having just read the USSC ruling on denying an accelerated hearing regarding the votes received after election day, it seems pretty clear to me that they will rule that the Pa. Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. That said, how is this fair to the voters who acted in good faith in following the rules as they stood? Will the USSC be okay with disenfranchising these voters? Could they say, “We aren’t going to strip these people of their votes but in the future…blah, blah, blah” ?
I’m troubled by scotus meddling in state level elections; otoh, Christ, it’s not like people haven’t had a chance to vote and didn’t have fair warning to not wait until the last minute to vote.
