Introduction

Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, 140 S. Ct. 1205 (2020), is a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision that addresses the procedural integrity of absentee ballot deadlines during the 2020 Wisconsin spring election. This case emerged amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, raising critical questions about election administration, voter access, and judicial intervention in electoral processes.

The primary parties involved were the Republican and Democratic National Committees, along with individual Wisconsin voters and community organizations. The crux of the dispute centered on whether absentee ballots could be mailed and postmarked after the official election day, provided they were received by a subsequent extended deadline.

Summary of the Judgment

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, granted a stay on the District Court's order that allowed absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after April 7, 2020, to be counted provided they were received by April 13, 2020. The Supreme Court upheld the necessity of adhering to the original election deadline, emphasizing that lower courts should refrain from altering election procedures near the election date.

The majority opinion, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, focused on the procedural anomaly where the District Court unilaterally extended the absentee ballot mailing and postmark deadline without explicit request from the plaintiffs. The Court underscored the importance of maintaining clear and consistent election rules to preserve electoral integrity.

Conversely, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissented. The dissent criticized the majority for disregarding the practical challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting surge in absentee ballot requests, arguing that the stay could disenfranchise thousands of voters unable to receive and return their ballots in time.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court's decision heavily relied on precedents that caution against lower courts altering election procedures close to election dates. Key cases include:

• Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006): This case established the "Purcell principle," which advises against judicial interventions that could disrupt ongoing election processes, especially near election dates.
• Frank v. Walker, 574 U.S. 929 (2014): Reinforced the idea that courts should typically avoid altering election rules unless absolutely necessary.
• Veasey v. Perry, 574 U.S. ___ (2014): Emphasized the importance of maintaining orderly and predictable election procedures.

These precedents collectively influenced the Court's reluctance to permit the District Court's extensive modifications to the absentee ballot process, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding electoral integrity.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's majority focused on the procedural impropriety of the District Court's actions. They noted that the plaintiffs in the case did not request the specific relief of extending the mailing and postmark deadlines. By introducing such a significant change unilaterally, the District Court overstepped its authority, thereby conflicting with established judicial norms.

The Court emphasized that altering election rules immediately before an election could lead to confusion and undermine public trust in the electoral process. Additionally, the majority pointed out that the District Court's order effectively changed the nature of the election, which should be determined by legislative bodies rather than courts, especially under normal circumstances.

Impact

The judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding the sanctity and predictability of election procedures. By restricting lower courts from making last-minute changes to election rules, the Supreme Court ensures that electoral processes remain stable and that voters have a clear understanding of ballot submission requirements.

Future cases involving election administration may reference this decision to argue against judicial overreach in modifying election procedures. Moreover, it underscores the importance of addressing election-related disputes well in advance of election dates to prevent last-minute judicial interventions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Preliminary Injunction: A court order made in the early stages of a lawsuit which prohibits the parties from taking certain actions until the case has been decided.

Per Curiam: A decision delivered by the court as a whole, without specifying any individual justice's authorship.

Postmark: The official mark or stamp placed on a mailed ballot indicating the date it was sent. Ensuring a ballot is postmarked by election day is crucial for its validity.

Stay: A legal order to temporarily suspend a judicial proceeding or the enforcement of a judgment.

Judicial Overreach: When a court exceeds its authority, making decisions in areas typically reserved for other branches of government.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity and predictability of election processes. By limiting lower courts from making substantial last-minute changes to absentee ballot deadlines, the Court upheld the importance of adhering to established electoral procedures. This judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the principles set forth in key precedents, ensuring that elections remain free from judicial overreach and that voters can have confidence in the electoral system's consistency and fairness.

Moving forward, this decision highlights the necessity for legislative bodies to proactively address election administration challenges, especially during unprecedented circumstances like a pandemic. It also emphasizes the judiciary's responsibility to refrain from interventions that could destabilize the foundational elements of democratic processes.