Supreme Court Reinstates Alabama's Ban on Curbside Voting
Source: WSJ
WASHINGTONThe Supreme Court reinstated Alabamas ban on curbside voting Wednesday, blocking a lower court order that allowed county officials to use the accommodation so that disabled citizens could cast ballots more safely during the coronavirus pandemic.
The eight-member courts conservative majority issued the order without an opinion explaining its rationale; the courts three liberals dissented.
The 5-3 decision was the latest in a wave of coronavirus-related election cases reaching the court, as voters, officials and political parties fight over voting procedures roiled by a pandemic that spreads through close contact.
In Alabama, a group of elderly and disabled voters and four advocacy groups filed suit in federal court seeking several accommodations in relation to the pandemic. When those accommodations were granted by a federal judge, state officials appealed.
Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-reinstates-alabamas-ban-on-curbside-voting-11603337129
Roberts is a loose cannon. He has become completely unpredictable.
SunSeeker
(51,516 posts)Renew Deal
(81,847 posts)dem in texas
(2,673 posts)Curbside voting for disabled has been available in Dallas, Texas for years.
ananda
(28,836 posts)It seems a no brainer.
It will only get worse with Barrett on the court.
CountMyVote4Reality
(209 posts)Our rulers truly fear our votes as if they are pitchforks.
cstanleytech
(26,236 posts)from suffering from the consequences at the polls by the voters for the politicians actions?
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Lonestarblue
(9,958 posts)There were a couple of interesting opinion pieces a few days ago in the Washington Post outlining how to legislate to accomplish Democrats policy goals rather than expand the Court. Someone here suggested that the first legislation Democrats should pass if they regain control of the Senate is a bill to expand the Court and just sit on it. Good idea. That sends a very clear message to the Court that their partisan politics are on trial.
riversedge
(70,089 posts)until the Handmaiden is installed, then 6-3 for a decade or two while our civil rights grind down.
melm00se
(4,986 posts)Here is the reasoning of the court (I highlighted the reason)
I interpret this as the appellant jumped the gun and went straight to the Supreme Court rather than letting the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to do their job.
The dissent, in a nut shell, is basically saying that COVID should mean that the judicial process can be shortcut.
I can see both sides here and understand that the timing on this one is pretty tight with election day 12 days away. It should be noted, however, that when the Supreme Court rules, it becomes precedent and the "why" the Court chose to act (lets say because of COVID) may not be really relevant 1, 10, 20, 60 years down the road but the Court ruled and "so it is written, so it is done" (to quote Yul Brynner) and we are stuck with the decision (right or wrong, good or bad) until the Court choses to overrule itself (which has been a topic here in the past).