Supreme Court Watch: Public Safety vs Voting
John Christie • September 1, 2020
On Thursday, March 12, the Supreme Court announced that because of covid-19 it would close its doors to the public “until further notice,” out of concern for the health and safety of both the public and Supreme Court employees. Scheduled sittings of the Court in March and April were cancelled. In May, oral arguments in 10 cases were heard by telephone instead of in the Court’s majestic courtroom; oral arguments in the rest of the 2019 Term’s open docket were re-scheduled for the fall. Opinions in decided cases were released by the Court’s clerk without the usual oral commentaries provided by the Justices themselves in open court. Especially for a very traditionally oriented institution, these accommodations because of coronavirus risks could be described as nothing short of momentous.
Likewise, because of widespread health concerns, lower federal courts around the country began to fashion various accommodations modifying normal state election procedures because of the negative impact those procedures would have on the election process given the pandemic. However, in a series of recent emergency orders, a slim majority of the Court has rejected these election-related accommodations, ostensibly on the grounds that federal courts should not “ordinarily” alter the rules close to an election. In the cases where the votes of individual Justices have been announced, the five votes to reject these accommodations have been by the four more conservative Justices on the Court — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh — joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
The first of these cases involved a Wisconsin election scheduled for Tuesday, April 7. In the weeks leading up to the election, the covid–19 pandemic had become a public health crisis. On March 24, the governor ordered Wisconsinites to stay at home until April 24 to slow the spread of the disease. Because gathering at the polling place posed obvious health risks, an unprecedented number of Wisconsin voters — with the encouragement of public officials — turned to voting by absentee ballot. The surge of absentee ballot requests heavily burdened election officials, resulting in a severe backlog of ballots requested but not promptly mailed to voters.
Several weeks before the scheduled vote, a group of individual Wisconsin voters, community organizations, and the state and national Democratic parties filed lawsuits seeking several forms of relief, all aimed at easing the effects of the covid–19 pandemic on the upcoming election. The state and national Republican parties intervened in opposition. On April 2, the District Court ruled that the existing deadlines for absentee voting would unconstitutionally burden the right to vote. The deadline for election officials to receive completed absentee ballots was extended from 8 p.m. on election day, April 7, to 4 p.m. on April 13, regardless of the postmark date. The District Court also ruled that no reports of polling results could be released before the new absentee-voting deadline. On appeal by the Republican parties, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the extended absentee-ballot deadline.
The Republican parties then sought emergency relief in the Supreme Court and, the day before the election, the Court by a 5-4 vote determined that only ballots postmarked by election day could be counted. In an unsigned opinion, the majority determined that lower federal courts should “ordinarily” not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. Justice Ginsberg dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. For the dissenters, the question was whether tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens could safely vote in the midst of a pandemic. “Under the District Court’s order, they would be able to do so. Even if they receive their absentee ballot in the days immediately following election day, they could return it. With the majority’s stay in place, that will not be possible. Either they will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others’ safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own.” Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (April 6, 2020).
Similar results occurred in several later cases, all following a similar pattern.
Merrill, AL Sec. of State v People First of Alabama (July 2, 2020): The Supreme Court rejected a lower court ruling that would make it easier for voters in the state to cast absentee ballots in the primary election runoff.
Bradley Little, Governor of Idaho v. Reclaim Idaho (July 30, 2020): The Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling to extend the deadline for accepting ballot-initiative signatures and permitting digital collection of signatures.
Clarno, OR Sec. of State v. People Not Politicians (August 11, 2020): The Supreme Court denied the state’s request to relax requirements for placing a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution on the ballot in the November election.
Most recently, in the only one of this series of emergency orders to uphold a lower court order, the justices rejected a request by the Republican National Committee and Rhode Island Republicans to freeze a lower-court order. The order approved an agreement between state election officials and civic groups waiving a requirement that absentee ballots be signed in the presence of either two witnesses or a notary. A one-paragraph, unsigned order explained that “unlike in other recent election-law cases here the state election officials support the challenged decree.“ Three Justices – Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch – indicated that they would have granted the Republicans’ request. Republican Nat. Committee v. Common Cause RI (August 13, 2020).
Collectively, these cases display a slim majority of the Court unwilling to accept changes in state election procedures born out of covid-19 concerns endorsed by lower federal courts. The sole exception to date appears only when state election officials themselves buy on to the proposed modifications, a probably unique circumstance. These are hardly “ordinary” times, and the conservative hostility to these kinds of accommodations is ironic in light of the health risks the Court acknowledged with respect to its own internal operations.
John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
At Shore Progress’s monthly meeting last week, the tension between national politics and local opportunity was on full display. With President Donald Trump escalating his attacks on offshore wind, representatives from US Wind and the Oceantic Network made their case directly to members gathered in Salisbury. From the outset, the presenters stressed the scale of what’s coming to the Eastern Shore. “This project is the equivalent of building two nuclear power plants off our coast,” US Wind representative Dave Wilson said, pointing to plans for 114 turbines and four offshore substations. Together, he said, the project will generate two net gigawatts of clean energy, enough to power approximately 26% of the homes in Maryland. The presentation walked members through the timeline: a four-phase buildout beginning in the southeast corner of the lease area, with each phase, including its own export cable, routed through Indian River Bay into the regional grid at the Indian River Power Plant in Delaware. Environmental safeguards on display Slides showed how US Wind plans to minimize negative effects on wildlife. The company will use an aircraft detection lighting system to keep turbines dark until a low-flying aircraft approaches, reducing night-sky light pollution. Marine protections include bubble curtains to dampen noise during pile driving, visual and acoustic monitoring for whales, and strict shutdown zones if animals enter construction areas. Lights will be on less than 1% of the time in any given year, underscoring their view that offshore wind can coexist with migratory birds, commercial fishing, and marine transit. Economic promise for the Shore The discussion turned quickly to what the project means locally. US Wind pledged hundreds of jobs for the Shore, with commitments to use union labor and partner with minority, women, and veteran-owned businesses. Officials noted that the Lower Shore Workforce Alliance has already received $700,000 from Maryland Works for Wind to build training programs, while community colleges are adjusting trade curricula to educate the next generation of turbine technicians. A planned operations and maintenance facility in West Ocean City will house technicians and crew transfer vessels, bringing steady employment and infrastructure investment to the harbor. A national fight with local stakes The meeting didn’t shy away from politics. Several members noted Trump’s repeated attempts to derail offshore wind projects including his latest push to revoke US Wind’s federal permit. US Wind officials acknowledged that such lawsuits could delay progress but insisted that the project’s federal approvals are on solid ground. “This is the Eastern Shore's moment,” Shore Progress Chair Jared Schablein said, referring to a slide that showed more than $815 million in offshore wind investments statewide. “The question is whether politics will slow us down, or whether we keep building for the Shore’s future.” The presentation had a clear message: Offshore wind is not just about clean power, but also about jobs, investment, and opportunity for Eastern Shore families. Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.
Standing at the Legacy at Twin Rivers apartment community in Howard County, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed an executive order aimed at addressing his state’s deepening housing crisis. Titled Housing Starts Here, his order is designed to accelerate construction of affordable homes and cut through what Moore called years of “no and slow” decision-making in state housing policy. Maryland is facing a shortage of at least 96,000 housing units, according to state estimates, a gap that officials say has driven up prices, pushed families out of the state, and stifled economic growth. “Building pathways to wealth for Marylanders, creating jobs, attracting new businesses and residents, growing our economy, and securing our future all start with housing,” Moore said at the signing. “We need to be the state of yes and now.” Five guiding principles The executive order lays out five core priorities for state housing policy: Use state land for housing . Agencies must identify surplus properties and land near transit stations that can be converted into new housing developments. Cut red tape. State permitting processes will be streamlined, with new rules allowing third-party reviewers to accelerate approvals. Strengthen partnerships. A new State Housing Ombudsman will serve as a liaison to help coordinate projects between state agencies, local governments, and developers. Set clear goals. By January 2026, the state will publish housing production targets for each county and update them every five years. Incentivize affordable housing. Jurisdictions that meet housing targets or pass pro-housing policies will be recognized with new Maryland Housing Leadership Awards, making them more competitive for state funding. Speed as the priority State officials said the new framework is focused on cutting delays that can hold back projects for years. By digitizing applications, engaging multiple agencies simultaneously, and allowing outside reviewers, the state aims to expedite project completion while upholding environmental and community standards. What could this mean for us on the Eastern Shore? Moore acknowledged that housing affordability consistently ranks as Marylanders’ No. 1 concern. For young people in particular, high costs and long commutes are major reasons they leave the state. The order seeks to reverse that trend, tying housing growth to job creation and transit access. On the Eastern Shore , where rental availability and starter homes are limited, Moore’s order could open opportunities for mixed-use, transit-oriented projects on state-owned land, as well as accelerate approval for affordable housing initiatives backed by nonprofits and local developers. What comes next The Department of Housing and Community Development will publish the state’s first set of production targets by Jan. 1, 2026, followed by annual progress reports starting in 2027. Agencies have until March 2026 to implement many of the new permitting and funding acceleration rules. Moore framed the executive order as a generational investment. “Making housing more affordable is not just about building shelter, it’s about building a legacy,” he said.
Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) has intensified her calls for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to step down, releasing a detailed report that she says proves his tenure has been a disaster for American families. The first senator to demand Kennedy’s resignation in May, Alsobrooks joined Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in unveiling a 54-page report that chronicles what they describe as the “costly, chaotic, and corrupt” record of Kennedy’s first 203 days at the department. Released before Kennedy’s Senate hearing last week, the report outlines examples of alleged mismanagement for each day since he was sworn in on Feb. 13. “Robert Kennedy’s tenure as America’s chief health officer has been higher costs, more chaos, and boundless corruption,” Wyden said. “His actions are endangering children, leaving parents confused and scared, and forcing families and taxpayers to pay more for their health care.” Echoing that assessment, Alsobrooks cited testimony from scientists at the National Institutes of Health in Maryland who she says have watched critical cancer research grind to a halt under Kennedy’s leadership. “His actions are increasing Americans’ health care costs, causing chaos, and furthering the Trump administration’s endless stream of corruption,” she said. The report argues that Kennedy has: Driven up costs by backing the Trump administration’s budget plan, which Alsobrooks says strips health coverage from 15 million Americans while handing tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations. Created chaos by dismantling HHS programs, undermining research institutions, and promoting vaccine misinformation. Engaged in corruption by using the office to advance personal and family financial interests, particularly around limiting vaccine access. Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, praised Alsobrooks’ leadership. “President Trump and Senate Republicans made a grievous error when entrusting Kennedy with our nation’s health,” the group said in. “It is far past time that President Trump rectifies this error by firing Kennedy before more lives are unnecessarily put at risk.” Alsobrooks appeared on the Morning Joe TV show on to discuss the findings and to reiterate her demand that Kennedy resign or be removed. “This is about protecting families and protecting science,” she said. “Our nation’s health system cannot afford another day under Robert Kennedy’s reckless watch.” As a community organizer, journalist, administrator, project planner/manager, and consultant, Gren Whitman has led neighborhood, umbrella, public interest, and political committees and groups, and worked for civil rights and anti-war organizations.
Wicomico County leaders have announced plans to move forward with the federal government’s controversial 287(g) program, entering into an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that would deputize local officers to serve immigration warrants inside the county jail. Under the model selected, known as the Warrant Service Officer program, specially trained deputies at the detention center would be allowed to serve civil immigration warrants on individuals already in custody. County Executive Julie Giordano and Sheriff Mike Lewis emphasized that deputies would not conduct street-level immigration enforcement. “Public safety is our top responsibility,” Giordano said. “The Warrant Service Officer program provides our sheriff’s office with the tools they need to address individuals already in custody who may pose a risk to our community at no additional cost to the county.” Lewis added that the program “gives our deputies the ability to safely and lawfully carry out their duties while ensuring that Wicomico County remains a secure place to live, work, and raise a family.” Community pushback The announcement drew swift opposition from civil rights and community organizations, including the ACLU of Maryland, the Wicomico NAACP, and local grassroots groups such as Crabs on the Shore, who have warned that the agreement will harm immigrant families, sow fear, and erode trust between residents and law enforcement. Opponents also criticized the process, arguing that the decision was rushed through without meaningful public input despite repeated calls for hearings. “This is being framed as an administrative detail, but it has huge consequences for our neighbors,” one advocate said. Concerns about cost and precedent Supporters of the WSO model have emphasized that the partnership comes “at no additional cost” to Wicomico taxpayers, but critics point out that other jurisdictions have found otherwise. Anne Arundel County canceled its own 287(g) agreement, citing high costs and community backlash. The Camden Police Department in Delaware withdrew from a similar partnership after public protests in May. Advocates note that the federal government does not fully reimburse counties for the time, training, and legal exposure associated with 287(g) programs, leaving local taxpayers to shoulder hidden expenses. First on Delmarva If finalized, Wicomico County would become the first government or police agency on the Delmarva Peninsula to formally enter into a 287(g) agreement with ICE. Supporters say that distinction demonstrates a commitment to accountability and public safety. Opponents warn it risks branding the county as hostile to immigrant communities that have long been central to the Shore’s workforce, particularly in poultry processing and agriculture. The county’s decision comes amid a broader national debate about local involvement in federal immigration enforcement, with critics warning that partnerships like 287(g) make communities less safe by discouraging victims and witnesses from coming forward. For now, the final agreement is pending federal approval. But with strong opposition already mobilized, the fight over Wicomico’s new partnership is likely only beginning.
Wicomico County Republicans have moved forward with an agreement to join the federal 287(g) program, aligning the county with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). County Executive Julie Giordano and Sheriff Mike Lewis are backing the program to train county officers at the detention center to help ICE identify non-citizens for deportation proceedings. The agreement has triggered strong pushback from immigrant advocates, civil rights groups, and community leaders who warn that this partnership will erode trust between residents and law enforcement, risk racial profiling, and allot local tax dollars to assist federal immigration enforcement. Yet amid the growing controversy, the Wicomico County Democratic Central Committee has issued no response to the ICE agreement, even as residents voice frustration that the Democratic establishment’s silence has ceded the conversation to Republicans. Moreover, the Central Committee has remained silent with regard to recent comments by Democratic Councilwoman April Jackson, who told the Washington Post that the poultry industry should reduce its reliance on immigrant workers. Jackson also said, “a lot of Americans aren’t employed because the Haitians are taking our jobs.” Jackson’s remarks have drawn widespread criticism from immigrant advocates. For many residents, the Democratic leadership’s silence is as much of a concern as the county government’s new partnership with ICE. As the county waits for federal approval of the 287(g) agreement, the absence of a Democratic counterweight has left immigrant families and community organizers to carry the opposition on their own.
With speculation mounting that Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes (D-37A) may run for County Executive for Wicomico County in 2026, the longtime Eastern Shore lawmaker will headline a Community Conversation in Dorchester County on Sept. 17 at 6 pm. Sponsored by the Eastern Shore Democrats, the event will give residents the opportunity to hear Sample-Hughes speak about local priorities — schools, public safety, health care access, and economic development in the mid-Shore. Sample-Hughes, former Speaker Pro Tem of the Maryland House of Delegates, has represented portions of Wicomico and Dorchester counties for more than a decade. Her record includes bipartisan work on district projects, as well as efforts to expand health services and invest in infrastructure. Although organizers emphasize that the Sept. 17 gathering is not a campaign event, the timing has fueled interest. Political observers note that any appearance by Sample-Hughes will be closely watched as Democrats weigh potential challengers for County Executive in the upcoming cycle. The forum will include remarks from the delegate, followed by a question-and-answer session. Seating is available first-come, first-served and residents from across the Shore are encouraged to attend. Key details What: Community Conversation with Del. Sheree Sample-Hughes When: Sept. 17, 6 pm Where: Dorchester County, venue to be announced by organizers. Format: Remarks followed by audience Q&A Before her election to the House of Delegates, Sample-Hughes served on the Wicomico County Council. Should she enter the county executive race, many believe she would be a serious challenger to Republican incumbent Julie Giordano.
