Just a simple place mat game of which one is not like the others:
Let’s just start with my home state, Wisconsin:
The Supreme Court on Monday night voted against reinstating an order by a Wisconsin federal court judge that said absentee ballots could be counted if received within six days after the election as long as they were postmarked by Election Day. The final vote was 5-3.
The Supreme Court will allow Pennsylvania to count mailed-in ballots received up to three days after the Nov. 3 election, rejecting a Republican plea in the presidential battleground state.
The Supreme Court late Wednesday declined to block lower court rulings that allow six extra days for accepting ballots sent by mail in North Carolina. The justices left the later deadline in place, a victory for Democrats in a presidential battleground state…
The North Carolina ruling isn’t as bad as it may look on the surface, and not nearly as odious as the Pennsylvania decision. Despite stretching the deadline out to November 12, any ballots received during that period will still have to be clearly postmarked by election day, November 3rd. All this rule is really doing is allowing for the possibility that the Post Office might not be able to deliver some ballots as quickly as usual due to anticipated high volumes of mail.
bzzzzt…the answer is Wisconsin which was decided by a 5-3 vote. Now the other two states were a tie 4-4 vote so the existing rules prevailed. But why was the Wisconsin case not a 4-4 tie as well?
And these three examples are a simple testament to the probable outcome related to voting rights and personal rights in general in the future US Supreme Court due to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s dishonesty and obstruction in the Senate over the past eight to ten years.
Editor’s Note: First, I duplicated the Penn information…had too many tabs open during the cut and paste session. And mistook South for North Carolina…have that corrected as well.
The vote in the North Carolina case was 5-3, not 4-4. This raises more interesting questions about why the outcome differed from that in the Wisconsin case.