On Aug. 18, President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign (along with the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republicans) filed a lawsuit in federal court in New Jersey against the state’s governor, Democrat Philip Murphy, and its secretary of state, Tahesha Way. The Trump campaign asked the district court to overturn an executive order that would send mail-in ballots to all registered voters in the state, arguing that the order is a “brazen power grab” that violates the Constitution.
Murphy issued the order, known as Executive Order 177, at the center of the dispute on Aug. 14. The order directs the state to send mail-in ballots to all registered voters, and it requires election officials to count all ballots that are either received within 48 hours after the polls close on Nov. 3 (regardless of whether they have a postmark) or are received by Nov. 10 (as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3). The order, the Trump campaign contended, violates the Constitution by usurping the state legislature’s power to set the time, place and manner for congressional elections, as well as the process by which the state chooses electors for the presidency. Moreover, the campaign continued, the order “has created a recipe for disaster” that violates New Jersey residents’ right to vote, because fraudulent votes dilute honest votes.
The Trump campaign told the court that “COVID-19 does not warrant throwing out longstanding safeguards that protect the integrity of elections.” But here, the campaign stressed, “New Jersey is containing the outbreak much better than other populous states”; indeed, the campaign observed, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said that Americans should be able to vote in person as long as social-distancing measures are observed. The executive order, the campaign suggested, is “less about protecting the health of New Jerseyans and more about protecting the electoral prospects of the Governor’s political party.”
The Trump campaign asked the court to rule that the executive order violates the Constitution and to bar the state from sending out mail-in ballots.
In late August, the state’s legislature passed a law that reiterated Murphy’s order to send mail-in ballots to all registered voters and to count all ballots received (regardless of whether they have a postmark) within 48 hours after the polls close on Nov. 3. The law also allows election officials to begin counting mail-in ballots 10 days before the Nov. 3 election. One co-sponsor of the bill indicated that the law was intended to “undermine” the Trump campaign’s lawsuit.
On Sept. 16, lawyers for the Trump campaign asked the district court to block election officials from counting ballots before Election Day and from accepting ballots that aren’t postmarked after the polls close. Calling voter fraud “an unfortunate tradition in New Jersey,” the Trump campaign argued that “COVID-19 is no basis to throw out longstanding safeguards that protect the integrity of elections.” The new law, the campaign contended, conflicts with Congress’ designation of a single day – this year, Nov. 3 — as Election Day, and it creates “conditions likely to incentivize and facilitate the same kind of fraud and confusion that have plagued New Jersey elections for years.”
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp denied the Trump campaign’s request on Oct. 6. Citing the Supreme Court’s admonition that federal courts should generally defer to a state legislature’s decision to change election rules because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Shipp concluded that although New Jersey cannot count ballots cast after Election Day, it has the discretion to determine when ballots are counted as timely.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders|
|August 18, 2020||Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee|
|September 4, 2020||Application for extension of time to reply filed by Philip Murphy, governor of New Jersey, and Tahesha Way, secretary of state of New Jersey|
|September 8, 2020||ORDER: The application for extension of time to reply has been granted. The answer due date has been set for September 28, 2020.|
|September 16, 2020||Motion for preliminary injunction of state law A4475 filed by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al.|
|October 6, 2020||Motion for preliminary injunction denied 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.