Arizona allows all voters to vote by mail without an excuse in the 27 days leading up to an election. In June, the Arizona Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in federal court in Arizona. They challenged the state’s requirement that voters who forget to sign their mail-in ballots fix the mistake by Election Day, rather than within five days after the election, which is the deadline when the state determines that a voter’s signature on a mail-in ballot doesn’t match the one on file. Observing that in “recent general elections, a significant number of mail ballots have been rejected in Arizona for missing signatures,” the ADP argued that missing signatures could create even more problems this year because of the current delays in mail delivery. Voters may send in their ballots on time, the ADP contended, but if they neglect to sign their ballots, “through the vagaries of mail delivery that are entirely outside their control,” they may not be able to provide a signature by Election Day so that their ballots can be counted.
U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes ruled for the ADP on September 10. He concluded that the state’s Election-Day deadline for voters to supply a missing signature “imposes minimal but unjustifiable burdens on the right to vote” and does not do enough to protect the rights of voters, especially voters who submit their ballots so close to Election Day that they may not have time to correct a missing signature. Rayes ordered election officials to give voters who forget to sign their ballots five days after Election Day to provide the missing signature.
Rayes rejected a request from Arizona, the Republican National Committee, the Arizona Republican Party and the Trump campaign (all of which had intervened in the case) to put his ruling on hold while they appeal. Rayes acknowledged that the issues in the case “are difficult and fairly contestable,” but he also observed that “the State’s chief election officer” – Hobbs, who is a Democrat – had “welcomed” his order.
The intervenors went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, asking that court to fast-track their appeal so that they could “seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court before the general election if necessary.”
The 9th Circuit on Oct. 6 granted the state’s request to put Rayes’ order on hold while the state’s appeal is litigated. The court of appeals concluded that the requirement that voters supply a missing signature by Election Day imposes only a “minimal” burden. By contrast, the court concluded, “as we rapidly approach the election, the public interest is well served by preserving Arizona’s existing election laws, rather than by sending the State scrambling to implement and to administer a new procedure for curing unsigned ballots at the eleventh hour.” This is particularly true, the court noted, when the Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished the lower federal courts not to change the rules of an election in the run-up to that election.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders|
|June 10, 2020||Complaint filed by Arizona Democratic Party, et al., in district court|
|August 19, 2020||District court order granting motion to intervene as defendant by the state of Arizona|
|August 26, 2020||District court order granting motion to intervene as defendant by Republican National Committee, et al.|
|September 10, 2020||Preliminary injunction extending deadline to correct missing signatures issued by district court|
|September 18, 2020||Motion for stay of injunction denied by district court|
|September 18, 2020||Motion for stay of injunction filed in 9th Circuit by state of Arizona|
|September 21, 2020||Cross-motion for stay of injunction filed in 9th Circuit by Republican National Committee, et al.|
|September 24, 2020||9th Circuit order consolidating motions for stay and expediting briefing|
|October 6, 2020||9th Circuit order granting application for stay of district court ruling|
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
In this morning's orders list, SCOTUS took no action on pending cert petitions involving:
- Mississippi's near-ban on abortions after 15 weeks,
- a Trump rule banning Title X clinics from providing abortion referrals,
- the Trump administration's "public charge" immigration rule.
No real opinions today. The Supreme Court dismissed cert as "improvidently granted" in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.—a case about arbitration agreements.
That's all for today, folks.
The Supreme Court does not add any cases to its docket. It sends the Trump emoluments case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss as moot.
Here is the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012521zor_3f14.pdf
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.