79 Comments
User's avatar
FLNR's avatar

Remember, the Purcell principle is only in place when democrats are in charge like when Alabama had to draw another Dem seat and the court said was too late in like February 2022.

Mark Rubin's avatar

... and Purcell only applies to the courts. So, a lawless Administration can do whatever it wants to, right up to Election Day. The effect is the same, whoever makes the rules.

ASB's avatar

Exactly - as the old coin flip saying goes, "heads I win; tails you lose."

FLNR's avatar

Also if you pass laws in Congress Clarence Thomas reserves the right to find some bullshit footnote to shoehorn a denial of this law.

Glenn Gates Taylor's avatar

thanks for the quick update/summary

Richard's avatar

How often have these justices voted to uphold voting rights? It seems they're doing all they can to favor team GOP.

Robert Israel's avatar

I think it’s pretty obvious what they are doing-they are trumps personal law firm -

Robert Libby's avatar

There is no Team GOP, only the tRUmpistas, as bad a bunch of traitors on American soil since Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, et al!

Richard's avatar

Remember Bush v. Gore? Shelby County v. Holder? The Court has been doing this well before Trump.

Ven's avatar

Seriously. When Roberts went on his sermon about judges being apolitical, I almost lost my lunch. There has been no more politicized court than his in living memory.

Bowman Cutter's avatar

Agree. We,would be better off without the court

Michael Schilling's avatar

Thanks for the well done update!

joe sage's avatar

My guess is there are so many involved with their ass hanging out if the midterms don't go in favor of the gop, hell will be knocking at their doors. Looking directly at scotus.

LAURIE KAFKA's avatar

Regardless, the PO is ready to act on this. The SCOTUS could refuse to rule on the PO issue until AFTER the election, AFTER the damage is already done. There is NO GOOD THAT WILL COME OF THIS!

J E Ross's avatar

I remember a time when it would have surprised me. But it’s growing dimmer, along with the light of our Democratic republic.

Jeanney Kutner's avatar

Sorry, but I’m totally freaking out. I don’t see how we will have a fair election.

Gretchen Schuldt's avatar

Thank you. Still a bit nauseating, but thank you.

Brooks White's avatar

USPS- just sent cert reg return receipt, got nothing back. Talked to PO handling addressed mailed to and advised since Covid they just get too much and don't bother. No delivery and not the first time. Can't wait to see how they dump mail-in ballots. The fix has been in at SCOTUS for a long time. Time to bulldoze the bldg and take away security and let them eat their cooking as rest of Americans have to. It is just the pretense of the rule of law at this point.

Roso's avatar

Really appreciate your detailed explanation/analysis! I always count on your Substack to help me understand what’s going on with this Court!

jpickle777's avatar

Doesn't the final USPS rule say (in addition to alot of technical issues about the envelopes like bar codes) that each state's chief election official provides the official mail-in/absentee voter list and the USPS then will use this list to verify the mailings themselves? Aside from terrible timing, potential invasion of privacy, and infringement on states' rights, what is the risk the USPS actually will delay or block valid voters' ballots?

Ven's avatar

The risk is at 100%. The whole purpose of it is to grant them cover to do exactly that, spoiling the election even if the courts intervene. Everything in the second term is about attempting faits accompli.

Robisan's avatar

Re: Seventh - If the SC uses "Purcell" to effectively say 'we can't interfere with an 11th hour election change because it's the 11th hour' it would truly be a lawless court's chef's kiss.

Ven's avatar

“And the fact that we let this get to the eleventh hour isn’t relevant!”

Elizabeth Evans's avatar

"Section 3 (the really troubling part) is directed toward the U.S. Postal Service, and is the part that, if fully implemented, would allow the USPS to refuse to deliver mail-in ballots in states that don’t match their voter rolls to DHS’s own (likely deeply incomplete) list."

Does DHS normally keep a citizenship list? That feels a little.... concerning. It may not only be incomplete but highly selective.

And let's not even start on the idea of USPS overseeing anything but delivering the mail, particularly in rural areas. It's not hard to envision voter lawsuits, including in red states.

John Mitchell's avatar

I'm no expert, but the federal government's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) service keeps information on non-citizens and they want states to use it along with other federal databases such as Social Security information to verify U.S. citizenship for voters. The SAVE Act (2) mentions this. As has often been mentioned, these services don't currently seem capable of allowing states to reliably verify citizenship.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_Alien_Verification_for_Entitlements#Voting_eligibility

[2] Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text

Ven's avatar

The government has no ability to verify the citizenship of anyone without obtaining the same documents you use to get a passport.

If they did, you’d never need to show those documents to the Federal government. In Europe, they have that kind of centralized administration and, sure enough, even the IDs are for administrative convenience.