Court News - 5th Circuit rules against counting ballots delivered after election day.

[NWRatCon]

Indeed, one might count votes cast two or three months after election day IF avoiding any disenfranchisement were the sole goal. While I am sure there several established legal opinions on this matter, like most cases when there is a conflict between circuits the Supreme Court will usually rule on it. In short, it may be that for decades we have ignored federal law, statutory and/or constitutional, without a serious challenge.

And as latitude has become increasing unmoored to the law, it is overdue the courts look at exactly what "election day" means. If it means the day the state is in possession of the cast ballots, not a day later (or perhaps a day earlier) then so be it.

With respect, your arguments are nonsense; pure straw. These judges are completely out of step with the vast majority of judicial results and legal scholarship, because they are ideologues. It is they that are unmoored from the law. You just like the result. A little critical thinking might disabuse you.

 

[Doug64]

Except IIRC this ruling contradicts other rulings on the same matter, and appears to be deliberately interpreted to disenfranchise people. If the law is so ambiguous that different courts find different meanings, why don't we default to the ruling that DOESN'T disenfranchise voters?? Surely that is in the best interests of having a fair election??

Having read at least some of the opinion, it makes sense to me—“casting a vote” isn’t just filling out the ballot, but also turning it in to the proper authorities, and the law passed by Congress requires that the election be completed—meaning all ballots be cast—by Election Day. That isn’t “deliberately interpreting to disenfranchise people,” but interpreting so that the election is actually completed on Election Day and not continuing on for days or even over a week after. But yes, other courts have ruled otherwise, which, as @maxparrish points out, that pretty much guarantees that the Supreme Court will eventually take it up.

And what is a “fair” election? After all, if all that matters for a “fair” vote is that the voter make clear their preference, someone could just jot down their choices on a piece of notebook paper, sign it, turn it in, and insist their vote be counted. Wouldn’t any law requiring them to use the official ballots be a disenfranchisement of voters?

IIRC the guy heading the post office is still the unqualified dipshit that Trump appointed? Did that change at some point? We discussed this on these threads quite recently and I was told that the Trump appointee was still in office??

Whoever is running the post office isn’t single-handedly making sure that any mailed ballots arrive on time … or don’t. No, those are ordinary employees, whether salaried or not, whom Congress has never heard of. And like I said, I prefer to cast my ballot in person rather than depend on people I don’t even know to make sure it’s actually cast.

 

[j brown's body]

Indeed, one might count votes cast two or three months after election day IF avoiding any disenfranchisement were the sole goal. While I am sure there several established legal opinions on this matter, like most cases when there is a conflict between circuits the Supreme Court will usually rule on it. In short, it may be that for decades we have ignored federal law, statutory and/or constitutional, without a serious challenge.

And as latitude has become increasing unmoored to the law, it is overdue the courts look at exactly what "election day" means. If it means the day the state is in possession of the cast ballots, not a day later (or perhaps a day earlier) then so be it.

In Mississippi, it's 5 days, which seems reasonable.

There are a lot of laws that are ignored and go unchallenged and we're better off for it, especially now that the courts have become so ideological.

I don't think there is anything in the federal law that prohibits counting ballots that arrive late.

If the right-wing courts are going to interprete laws in away that have a deleterious effect on the citizenry, people will lose faith in the courts.

 

[j brown's body]

I have to disagree, Election Day is the day that the voting stops and the counting begins--that definitely means something. Nor do I see any courts ruling otherwise, since that would disenfranchise all our military serving overseas. It does mean that the ballots have to be finalized in time to get them printed, sent to those overseas, and returned by, say, a week before Election Day (a buffer for safety). Nor do I have a problem with early voting so long as it isn't too early. I actually prefer it, I voted last Saturday without having to take time from work.

So if they receive a mail-in ballot before election day, it should be disqualified?

 

[j brown's body]

Having read at least some of the opinion, it makes sense to me—“casting a vote” isn’t just filling out the ballot, but also turning it in to the proper authorities, and the law passed by Congress requires that the election be completed—meaning all ballots be cast—by Election Day. That isn’t “deliberately interpreting to disenfranchise people,” but interpreting so that the election is actually completed on Election Day and not continuing on for days or even over a week after. But yes, other courts have ruled otherwise, which, as @maxparrish points out, that pretty much guarantees that the Supreme Court will eventually take it up.

And what is a “fair” election? After all, if all that matters for a “fair” vote is that the voter make clear their preference, someone could just jot down their choices on a piece of notebook paper, sign it, turn it in, and insist their vote be counted. Wouldn’t any law requiring them to use the official ballots be a disenfranchisement of voters?


Whoever is running the post office isn’t single-handedly making sure that any mailed ballots arrive on time … or don’t. No, those are ordinary employees, whether salaried or not, whom Congress has never heard of. And like I said, I prefer to cast my ballot in person rather than depend on people I don’t even know to make sure it’s actually cast.

I don't think the law specifically disqualifies ballots that are received late.

 

[j brown's body]

"In support of the conclusion that post-election ballot deadlines operate harmoniously with congressional Election Day statutes, Guirola pointed to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 — a federal law that “implicitly” provides a post-election receipt deadline for timely cast ballots mailed by military and overseas voters."

Link

 

[Doug64]

So if they receive a mail-in ballot before election day, it should be disqualified?

Nope. Per the court’s opinion, Election Day is the date by which all votes must be cast—meaning, the ballot filled out and turned in to the proper authorities.

I don't think the law specifically disqualifies ballots that are received late.

No, the law specifies that Election Day shall be on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. The court is filling out what Election Day means.

"In support of the conclusion that post-election ballot deadlines operate harmoniously with congressional Election Day statutes, Guirola pointed to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 — a federal law that “implicitly” provides a post-election receipt deadline for timely cast ballots mailed by military and overseas voters."

Link

Note that word “implicit”—meaning, the law no more explicitly mandates accepting ballots that arrive after Election Day than Congress’s date explicitly mandates that they aren’t. A court can equally plausibly rule that the states have to provide the ballots 45 days before the election in such a way that the recipients will have time to return them before Election Day.

 

[NWRatCon]

"In support of the conclusion that post-election ballot deadlines operate harmoniously with congressional Election Day statutes, Guirola pointed to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 — a federal law that “implicitly” provides a post-election receipt deadline for timely cast ballots mailed by military and overseas voters."

Link

From your citation:
By preserving Mississippi’s post-election ballot receipt deadline statute, the ruling ensures that voters will continue to be protected from disenfranchisement due to postal delays beyond their control.

Enacted in 2020 with overwhelming bipartisan support, the state’s post-election ballot receipt deadline statute brought the Magnolia State in alignment with approximately 20 other states and U.S. territories that permit ballots to

 

[NWRatCon]

I see a lot of partisan support for this nonsense decision. Wonder why? I've voted twice while out of state on military duty. I'd be mighty pissed if I was treated this way for following orders.

The court is adding requirements clearly not consistent with legislative intent or existing law. They've created an issue that simply didn't exist, which is why these three are the only ones to rule this way. It doesn't follow ordinary rules of statutory construction, but it does follow Trump’s.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'm taking a step back. Not that there is any more merit to this panel's approach, but that I shouldn't blame casual readers for falling for it, because it "sounds" plausible. What the Court assiduously avoids, and why the deception seems logical, are the myriad legal precepts and precedents it ignores or violates. It doesn't read like the nonsense that it is. I reacted as a lawyer, not as an uninformed reader. I'll try to make up for that.

The first rule of statutory interpretation is actually to "not make an ass of the law"; or, put more academically, that the law should be interpreted to make sense. To do so, one looks first to the structure, language and purpose of the law. Sometimes that purpose is obvious on its face, sometimes one has to look to legislative history. In this instance, the panel's deception begins in the very first paragraph: "Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials." That is patently untrue. That has, in fact, never been true, which is why no other court has ruled this way. They get away with this lie because there is no dissent to keep them honest. As noted earlier, 20 jurisdictions have laws on the books that directly refute the claim. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-...-postmark-deadlines-for-absentee-mail-ballots Others have case law to the same effect.

Another rule of statutory construction is that courts should avoid constructions that conflict with other laws, and not reach a constitutional issue (such as preemption) if it can be avoided. The Court did not even pretend to do that, indeed  assuming federal preemption when that is inconsistent with longstanding precedent which avoids preemption unless Congress affirmatively asserts it. Congress did not do so here. In fact, Congress has frequently taken steps to avoid interference with the voting franchise (rather than, as the court does here, disenfranchisement), and expand flexibility (such as HAVA). These efforts contradict this court's "interpretation" of Congress intent.

Finally (for now), the Court arbitrarily dismisses the longstanding "mailbox rule" of "constructive receipt" which many jurisdictions, including the federal enclave of the District of Columbia, use: postmark by election day constitutes "constructive receipt". The panel simply dismisses this by asserting "voting is not a contract". It provides no other justification. That's absurd.

This opinion is not only sloppy, it is historically unsound, logically inconsistent and embarrassingly violative of even rudimentary legal construction.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The decision seems to call disenfranchising voters protection against disenfranchisement.

If a voter has no control over USPS timelines, then their rights should not be penalized for it.

 

[multivita-man]

Why are some people so determined to disenfranchise voters??? What does it matter if a vote cast before election day is delayed in the mail and arrives the day after election day while the counting is still being finalised? Surely the most important thing is that every legitimate vote has an opportunity to be counted??

Because they got tired of losing democratic elections, decided they that some voters are better than others, and committed to creating a system that aligns with that ideology accordingly. Took them a few decades, but here we are.

 

[multivita-man]

"Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials." That is patently untrue. That has, in fact, never been true, which is why no other court has ruled this way.

Like so many of the Federalist Society rulings, it's made up. A product of legal, constitutional, and historical fiction from the Antonin Scalia school of creative legal writing.

They get away with this lie because there is no dissent to keep them honest.

Shit, even if there were dissent, it wouldn't matter. All they need is a majority, as we've seen over and over again in the Supreme Court.

 

[Ishm]

Because they got tired of losing democratic elections, decided they that some voters are better than others, and committed to creating a system that aligns with that ideology accordingly. Took them a few decades, but here we are.

So tell us about this "system" that you say unfairly aligns with one ideology. See if you can do it with proven facts rather than maga conspiracy theories please.

 

[multivita-man]

So tell us about this "system" that you say unfairly aligns with one ideology. See if you can do it with proven facts rather than maga conspiracy theories please.

I think we're seeing it play out in real time. The Federalist judges are rewriting the Constitution in the Federalist Society's image and creating space for a right-wing illiberal democracy. If that's not apparent now, wait until after January 2025.

 

[Doug64]

If a voter has no control over USPS timelines, then their rights should not be penalized for it.

The voter may not have control over USPS timelines, but they have the ability to take those timelines into account when deciding when to mail in their ballots. If they put off dropping their ballots in the mail until the last minute, that’s on them.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The voter may not have control over USPS timelines, but they have the ability to take those timelines into account when deciding when to mail in their ballots. If they put off dropping their ballots in the mail until the last minute, that’s on them.

USPS timelines can be variable. That’s not good enough.

 

[Doug64]

USPS timelines can be variable. That’s not good enough.

True, it can be, which the voter should be aware of. Like Christmas shipping, it’s best to get it done as soon as possible. I see no reason why we can’t expect voters to be competent enough to know this. If they still screw up and get their vote in the mail late, that’s on them.

 

[Slartibartfast]

True, it can be, which the voter should be aware of. Like Christmas shipping, it’s best to get it done as soon as possible. I see no reason why we can’t expect voters to be competent enough to know this. If they still screw up and get their vote in the mail late, that’s on them.

Again, I disagree for the reason I already stated.