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
The 447th legislative session of the Maryland General Assembly adjourned on April 8. This End of Session Report highlights the work Shore Progress has done to fight for working families and bring real results home to the Shore. Over the 90-day session, lawmakers debated 1,901 bills and passed 878 into law. Shore Progress and members supported legislation that delivers for the Eastern Shore, protecting our environment, expanding access to housing and healthcare, strengthening workers’ rights, and more. Shore Progress Supported Legislation By The Numbers: Over 60 pieces of our backed legislation were passed. Another 15 passed in one Chamber but not the other. Legislation details are below, past the budget section. The 2026 Maryland State Budget How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. They began under Governor Larry Hogan. Governor Hogan expanded the state budget yearly but blocked the legislature from moving money around or making common-sense changes. Instead of fixing the structural issues, Hogan used federal covid relief funds to hide the cracks and drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image before leaving office. How Trump/Musk Made It Worse: Maryland is facing a new fiscal crisis driven by the Trump–Musk administration, whose trade wars, tariff policies, and deep federal cuts have hit us harder than most, costing the state over 30,000 jobs, shuttering offices, and erasing promised investments. A University of Maryland study estimates Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion, and those federal cuts have already added $300 million to our budget deficit. Covid aid gave us a short-term boost and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone, while housing, healthcare, and college prices keep rising. The Trump–Musk White House is only making things worse by slashing funding, gutting services, and eliminating research that Marylanders rely on. How The State Budget Fixes These Issues: This year, Maryland faced a $3 billion budget gap, and the General Assembly fixed it with a smart mix of cuts and fair new revenue, while protecting working families, schools, and health care. The 2025 Budget cuts $1.9 billion ($400 million less than last year) without gutting services people rely on. The General Assembly raised $1.2 billion in fair new revenue, mostly from the wealthiest Marylanders. The Budget ended with a $350 million surplus, plus $2.4 billion saved in the Rainy Day Fund (more than 9% of general fund revenue), which came in $7 million above what the Spending Affordability Committee called for. The budget protects funding for our schools, health care, transit, and public workers. The budget delivers real wins: $800 million more annually for transit and infrastructure, plus $500 million for long-term transportation needs. It invests $9.7 billion in public schools and boosts local education aid by $572.5 million, a 7% increase. If current revenue trends hold, no new taxes will be needed next session. Even better, 94% of Marylanders will see a tax cut or no change, while only the wealthiest 5% will finally pay their fair share. The tax system is smarter now. We’re: Taxing IT and data services like Texas and D.C. do; Raising taxes on cannabis and sports betting, not groceries or medicine; and Letting counties adjust income taxes. The budget also restores critical funding: $122 million for teacher planning $15 million for cancer research $11 million for crime victims $7 million for local business zones, and Continued support for public TV, the arts, and BCCC The budget invests in People with disabilities, with $181 million in services Growing private-sector jobs with $139 million in funding, including $27.5 million for quantum tech, $16 million for the Sunny Day Fund, and $10 million for infrastructure loans. Health care is protected for 1.5 million Marylanders, with $15.6 billion for Medicaid and higher provider pay. Public safety is getting a boost too, with $60 million for victim services, $5.5 million for juvenile services, and $5 million for parole and probation staffing. This budget also tackles climate change with $100 million for clean energy and solar projects, and $200 million in potential ratepayer relief. Public workers get a well-deserved raise, with $200 million in salary increases, including a 1% COLA and ~2.5% raises for union workers. The ultra-wealthy will finally chip in to pay for it: People earning over $750,000 will pay more, Millionaires will pay 6.5%, and Capital gains over $350,000 get a 2% surcharge. Deductions are capped for high earners, but working families can still deduct student loans, medical debt, and donations. This budget is bold, fair, and built to last. That’s why Shore Progress proudly supports it. Click on the arrows below for details in each section.
Let your elected representatives and business and cultural leaders know that our Refuge and others like it all over the country deserve to be protected. They deserve our stewardship for the natural wonders they shelter, and because they provide refuge for people, too.
The Budget Deficit In a recent debate on closing Maryland’s budget deficit, Minority Leader Jason Buckel, a Republican delegate from Allegany County, made an important point: “The man upstairs has only been there for two, three years. I don’t blame him for our economic failures of the last 10,” referring to Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who was elected in 2022. Ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial elections, Buckel’s comments highlight a key reality that many of his Republican colleagues seldom admit: It isn’t right to blame Gov. Moore for a budget deficit that has been brewing for years. Now projected at $3.3 billion, Maryland’s structural deficit is a problem that started long before Moore took office. In fact, it was first projected in 2017, during the tenure of former GOP Gov. Larry Hogan. This isn’t an opinion — it’s a fact that Buckel and other lawmakers, including Republican Del. Jefferson Ghrist, have bravely acknowledged. During that same debate, Ghrist remarked that the Department of Legislative Services had warned about this deficit throughout Hogan’s administration, yet he did little to address it. Ghrist pointed out that during Maryland’s “good years,” when the state received a flood of federal covid-19 relief dollars, spending spiraled without regard for long-term fiscal health. Hogan used these one-time federal funds to support ongoing programs, which masked the true state of Maryland’s finances and created an illusion of fiscal stability. Hogan continues to take credit for the “surplus” Maryland had in 2022 — even though experts repeatedly note it was caused by the influx of federal dollars during the pandemic. As Ghrist correctly observed, the lack of fiscal restraint and slow growth during the Hogan years laid the groundwork for the $3.3 billion structural deficit the state faces today. Indeed, Maryland’s economy has been stagnant since 2017, especially in comparison to its neighboring states, well before Moore took office. Compounding these challenges are President Donald Trump’s reckless layoffs and trade wars with our allies. Thousands of federal workers who live in Maryland are losing their jobs, which will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Trump’s tariffs will also put an enormous strain on local businesses, including Eastern Shore farmers, who are now subject to up to 15% retaliatory tariffs on chicken, wheat, soybeans, corn, fruits, and vegetables. FY2026 Budget Considering this grim reality, Maryland’s lawmakers are making difficult, but necessary, decisions to shore up the state’s finances. Gov. Moore and state legislative leaders recently agreed to a budget that prioritizes expanding Maryland’s economy without raising taxes on most residents. In fact, 94% of Marylanders should see either a tax cut or no change at all to their income tax bill under the proposed agreement. Lawmakers also plan to cut government spending by the largest amount in 16 years, while at the same time making targeted investments in emerging industries, such as quantum computing and aerospace defense, so the state is less dependent on federal jobs. While the richest Marylanders might see their income taxes go up, it’s reasonable to ask someone making over $750,000 a year to pay $1,800 more to support law enforcement, strengthen our schools, and grow our economy. As for the proposed tax on data and IT services, these products aren’t subject to Maryland’s sales tax under current law. Maryland leaders want to modernize our tax code by levying a 3% sales tax on these products. Because they don’t raise income taxes on the majority of Marylanders and because state leaders are also cutting spending by billions, these ideas are fair. They’re also necessary after Gov. Hogan chose to kick the can down the road instead of addressing Maryland’s long-predicted deficit and now that Trump’s policies will lay off thousands of Marylanders and his tariffs will hurt our state. By making responsible choices now, Maryland leaders are putting the state on a path to long-term economic stability. Their decisions will help Maryland thrive, create jobs, and invest in the vital services that every resident relies on — without burdening hardworking families. I’m confident Maryland will emerge stronger, more resilient, and ready to lead in the industries of tomorrow. Elaine McNeil is chair of the Queen Anne’s Democratic Central Committee.
Among Donald Trump’s most recent targets is what he calls “rogue law firms.” At 6pm last Thursday, March 27, he issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at my old law firm, WilmerHale, as one of those “rogue” firms. Approximately 15 hours later, the firm filed a 63-page complaint challenging the EO on multiple constitutional grounds. The EO is an “unprecedented assault on the bedrock principle that one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” and constitutes an “undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes Trump disfavors.” And by 8pm on Friday, March 28, a little over 24 hours after the EO was first issued, a federal district court judge in Washington granted a request for a temporary restraining order, blocking key provisions of the EO from taking effect for now. In doing so, the Court found that “the retaliatory nature of the EO is clear from its face. There is no doubt that it chills speech and legal advocacy and qualifies as a constitutional harm.” The Executive Order The EO and a so-called “Fact Sheet” that went with it recites that the Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm said to have abandoned the legal profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice by engaging in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The specific examples offered in support of this conclusion: The EO asserts that WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Trump’s political opponents — namely the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The EO cites WilmerHale’s “egregious conduct” in “supporting efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “backing the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes,” an apparent reference to the firm’s litigation related pro bono practice and successful challenges to immigration related policies. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “furthering the degradation of the quality of American elections,” an apparent reference to the film’s involvement in challenges to restrictive state voter-identification and voter-registration laws. The EO singles out certain current and former WilmerHale partners, including Robert Mueller, for special criticism by describing Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “one of the most partisan investigations in American history” and having “weaponized the prosecutorial power to suspend the democratic process and distort justice.” The EO then Revokes security clearances held by WilmerHale attorneys; Prohibits the federal government from hiring WilmerHale employees absent a special waiver; Orders a review and the possible termination of federal contracts with entities that do business with the firm; Calls for the withdrawal of government goods or services from the firm; and Calls for restrictions on the ability of WilmerHale employees to enter federal buildings (presumably including federal courthouses) and on their “engaging” with government employees. WilmerHale’s Complaint WilmerHale engaged Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration and a well-known advocate frequently representing conservative causes, to represent the firm in this matter. Assisted by some 15 WilmerHale litigators, the complaint names the Executive Office of the President and 48 other Departments, Commissions, and individual Officers in their official capacity as defendants. A variety of constitutional violations are alleged: The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale and its clients to speak freely, and petition the courts and other government institutions without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials. The separation of powers limits the President’s role to enforcing the law and no statute or constitutional provision empowers him to unilaterally sanction WilmerHale in this manner. The EO flagrantly violates due process by imposing severe consequences without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The EO violates the right to counsel protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts and expenditures. The complaint alleges that WilmerHale has already suffered irreparable damage in the 16 hours since the EO issued. The firm has been vilified by the most powerful person in the country as a “rogue law firm” that has “engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The EO will inevitable cause extensive, lasting damage to WilmerHale’s current and future business prospects. The harm to the firm’s reputation will negatively affect its ability to recruit and retain employees. Further Proceedings Temporary restraining orders constitute emergency relief upon a showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable harm were the temporary relief not entered. A later hearing will be held in order for the judge to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued preventing the government from executing the EO during the continued length of the litigation. Editorial Note: In light of the recent capitulation of several “Big Law” firms to the unreasonable and unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration, WilmerHale is providing a blueprint for resistance as it fights back. More law firms need to be inspired by WilmerHale’s response to Trump’s demand for revenge on his so-called political enemies. 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.
Tom Timberman was one of the founders of Common Sense for the Eastern Shore. Sadly, he died last month. He will be missed. Common Sense exists because of his leadership and inspiration. His vision was to provide factual and timely commentary and analysis on topics that concern people who live and work on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and to provide factual reporting to help readers shape their own lives. It was important to Tom, as it is today to the editorial board, for Common Sense to help voters to be aware of the effects — personal and local — of decisions made at the federal and state levels. Especially relevant now is this from our Mission Statement: “We seek an America responsive to its citizens and its constitution.” We reprint this tribute from Bill Flook, President of the Democratic Club of Kent County : Many of us were deeply saddened to learn of TomTimberman’s passing last week. It’s hard to believe that such a strong Democratic voice is gone. I worked with Tom for much of the past decade on many good projects promoting our values and activities, including helping on his campaign for County Commissioner, and I’ll particularly miss following his lead as Captain of the Dawn Patrol. Our group met most Saturday mornings for coffee and some good chat, before heading up to Dems HQ to set up the booth there. We’ll miss you, Tom!
After over 12 hours of debate over two days (and a whole circus from the other side), the Maryland House of Delegates has passed HB 350, this year's state budget, and sent it to the State Senate. This budget is a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Governor Wes Moore. It faces our state's $3 billion deficit head-on not with fantasy math, but with real choices: smart cuts and fair new revenue. This is what grown-up governing looks like. How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. Leaders began warning about a shortfall in 2017 when Governor Larry Hogan was in office. Hogan made our state budget bigger every year, but the legislature wasn’t allowed to move money around or make common-sense changes. By law, they could only make cuts. In 2020, Maryland voters changed that. Starting in 2023, lawmakers finally got full power to shape the budget, not just cut from it. Instead of fixing the problem, Governor Hogan used federal COVID relief to hide our fiscal instability. Then, before leaving office, he drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image. Today, we are facing a new fiscal arsonist. Donald Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal programs hit Maryland hard. We have more federal jobs and agencies than any other state, so we felt it worse than most. A University of Maryland study says Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. Trump/Musk's policies caused over 30,000 people in Maryland to lose their jobs, offices to shut down, and promised investments to disappear. These federal cuts added another $300 million to our budget deficit. COVID relief gave us a short break and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone now. Meanwhile, housing, healthcare, and college prices have gone way up. The Trump–Musk White House is making it worse by cutting even more funding, eliminating research, and gutting the services we rely on. That’s why Maryland had to act. We needed a real plan to protect working people, fund our schools and hospitals, and keep our state strong. Why Cuts Were Needed Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal agencies hit Maryland harder than any other state. A University of Maryland study says those tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. That hurts real people: A chicken farmer on the Eastern Shore is paying 25% more for fertilizer. A dock worker in Baltimore has fewer ships to unload. A restaurant owner in Western Maryland can’t afford eggs and tomatoes. We’ve lost over 30,000 jobs. Offices have shut down. Promised investments disappeared. The decisions of the Trump/Musk administration added $300 million to our state deficit.
