On Aug. 4, President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign (along with the Republican National Committee and the Nevada Republican Party) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Nevada. The campaign asked the court to block Nevada officials from implementing a new election law, known as AB4. Signed by the state’s Democratic governor, Steve Sisolak, on Aug. 3, the law requires the state to send mail-in ballots to all voters for the November 2020 election and makes other changes to election procedures to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.
In its complaint, the Trump campaign alleged that AB4 “makes voter fraud and other ineligible voting inevitable.” For example, the campaign contended, the law requires election officials in Nevada to “accept and count ballots received after Election Day even when” it isn’t clear that those ballots were cast on or before Nov. 3 – and, as a result, effectively pushes the 2020 election past Election Day. AB4 also authorizes more in-person polling places for urban counties than for rural counties, the campaign argued, thereby discriminating against rural voters. The law allows election officials to use different standards in deciding how to process and count ballots – which, the campaign claimed, means that otherwise identical ballots could be treated differently. Finally, the campaign asserted, the law requires election officials to count ballots that may be fraudulent or invalid, diluting the power of valid ballots.
Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske urged the district court to throw out the case, stressing that AB4 makes only “modest changes” to respond to the pandemic. What the Trump campaign is asking the court to do, she told the judge, is to weigh in on the wisdom of those changes. She noted that, although other states, including Florida, were also using mail-in voting for the 2020 elections, the Trump campaign has singled out Nevada “as the forum for high-profile litigation regarding vote-by-mail election processes.” But in any event, Cegavske concluded, the Trump campaign’s claims are purely speculative, as there has been no evidence of voter fraud in the states using mail-in voting.
U.S. District Judge James Mahan granted Cegavske’s motion to dismiss the case on Sept. 18. Mahan agreed with Cegavske that none of the challengers in the case had a legal right to sue, known as “standing.” Mahan stressed that “the key provisions of AB4 apply to all voters,” and the challengers had not shown how they or their members would be harmed by the law in a way that others would not. “Not only have” the challengers “failed to allege a substantial risk of voter fraud,” Mahan continued, but the state “has its own mechanisms for deterring and prosecuting voter fraud” — and the challengers have not alleged that these mechanisms will not work. What the case really boils down to, Mahan suggested, is that Trump and the GOP simply have “policy disagreements” with the law. Mahan also noted that the challengers had not asked to fast-track the case, even though they had “positioned [it] for last minute adjudication before the general election.”
|Date||Proceedings and Orders|
|August 4, 2020||Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Nevada Republican Party and Republican National Committee|
|August 10, 2020||Motion to dismiss complaint filed by Barbara Cegavske, secretary of state of Nevada|
|August 20, 2020||Amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al.|
|August 24, 2020||Motion to dismiss amended complaint filed by Barbara Cegavske|
|September 8, 2020||Response to motion to dismiss filed by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al.|
|September 15, 2020||Reply to response to motion to dismiss filed by Barbara Cegavske|
|September 18, 2020||Motion to dismiss complaint granted by district court|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.