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
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Apparently, some people think that the GOP’s “big beautiful bill” is a foregone conclusion, and that the struggle over the budget and Trump’s agenda is over and done. Not true. On Sunday night, the bill — given the alternate name “Big Bad Bullsh*t Bill” by the Democratic Women’s Caucus — was voted out of the House Budget Committee. The GOP plan is to pass this legislation in the House before Memorial Day. But that’s not the end of it. As Jessica Craven explained in her Chop Wood Carry Water column: “Remember, we have at least six weeks left in this process. The bill has to: Pass the House, Then head to the Senate where it will likely be rewritten almost completely, Then be passed there, Then be brought back to the House for reconciliation, And then, if the House changes that version at all, Go back to the Senate for another vote.” She adds, “Every step of that process is a place for us to kill it.” The bill is over a thousand pages long, and the American people will not get a chance to read it until it has passed the House. But, thanks to 5Calls , we know it includes:
Let's talk about our Eastern Shore Delegation, the representatives who are supposed to fight for our nine Shore counties in Annapolis, and what they actually got up to this session.
For the first time in recent memory, Virginia Democrats have candidates running in all 100 House of Delegates districts — a milestone party leaders and grassroots organizers say reflects rising momentum as President Donald Trump’s second term continues to galvanize opposition.
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.
