It seems the legal circus surrounding mail-in voting has taken center stage once again! In a move that surprised absolutely no one, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to steer clear of the Oregon debacle, leaving the state’s mail-in voting system untouched. I mean, why bother with a system that’s been running smoothly since the turn of the millennium, right?
The plaintiffs in the Oregon case, bless their hearts, tried to argue that mail-in voting could lead to fraudulent votes and disenfranchise legitimate voters. But here’s the kicker: they couldn’t provide a shred of evidence to back up their claims! It’s almost as if they were grasping at straws, hoping to find a way to discredit a system that has been working just fine.
The courts, in their infinite wisdom, saw right through this charade. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals practically rolled their eyes as they dismissed the plaintiffs’ concerns as “too speculative.” I can just imagine the judges sighing heavily as they explained that without concrete evidence of discounted votes or fraudulent influence, the plaintiffs had no leg to stand on.
Meanwhile, over in Pennsylvania, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decided to shake things up a bit. In a ruling that has the Republican National Committee (RNC) grinning from ear to ear, the court sided with those advocating for stricter voter integrity measures. The crux of the matter? Whether mail-in ballots with missing or incorrect dates should be counted.
The Democrats, ever the champions of paperwork errors, argued that these ballots should be accepted based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Materiality Provision. They claimed that denying voting rights over minor mistakes was a big no-no. But the RNC, in a stunning display of mental gymnastics, countered that the date requirement was crucial and didn’t violate voters’ rights at all!
The judges, all appointed by Democrats (plot twist!), mostly agreed with the RNC’s interpretation. They drew a witty analogy between voter qualification and obtaining a driver’s license, noting that states have separate rules for different stages of the voting process. In other words, the federal government can protect your right to vote, but the states get to decide how you actually cast that vote.
Michael Whatley, the RNC Chairman, couldn’t contain his excitement as he hailed the decision as a “crucial victory for election integrity and voter confidence.” He waxed poetic about how Pennsylvanians deserve to feel secure in their mail ballots and how this ruling was a resounding rejection of those pesky “left-wing attempts” to count undated or incorrectly dated ballots.
As the 2024 elections loom on the horizon, these legal battles over mail-in voting are sure to keep us entertained. With different circuits offering contrasting rulings, it’s anyone’s guess how this will all play out. One thing’s for sure, though: the major political parties will be milking these precedents for all they’re worth, spinning them to fit their respective narratives on electoral integrity and voter access. Grab your popcorn, folks, because this legal drama is far from over!
