Supreme Court won't block eased rules for Rhode Island absentee ballots
Source: CNN
The Supreme Court will not intervene in a legal fight concerning absentee ballots in Rhode Island, meaning the state's order removing a requirement that absentee ballots must be signed by two witnesses or a notary public will stand.
Thursday's order is a loss for the Republican National Committee, which had asked the court to step in after lower courts ruled to uphold the new absentee ballot rules. The witness requirement was eliminated at the height of the pandemic, and applied to absentee ballots during the state's rescheduled presidential primary on June 2.
The order was unsigned. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have granted the RNC's request for a stay.
In its filing to the Supreme Court, the Republicans argued that the pandemic won't prevent voters from getting signatures from witnesses or a notary.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-wont-block-eased-rules-for-rhode-island-absentee-ballots/ar-BB17Vh76?li=BBnb7Kz
Guess Republicans don't believe in democracy
= new reply since forum marked as read
From the (surprisingly short) decision I read, it looks like the decision was based on standing ("the applicants lack a cognizable interest"
, meaning, a political party cannot challenge a state's ballot requirements.
I'm no expert, but it seems like that also means if a GOP state requires 2 witnesses & a bunch of other stuff to cast a mail-in ballot, the Democratic party won't have standing to challenge it.
I invite legal experts to weigh in.
Here's a link to the decision:
[link:
Link to tweet
?s=09|]
