How Courts Interpret Election Laws And Change Them

The role of the judiciary in the electoral process is a highly debated topic. While courts can interpret and apply election laws, the question of whether they should be able to change these laws is complex and often controversial. This issue has gained prominence in recent years, with various lawsuits challenging election laws and procedures, such as those related to absentee ballots, voter eligibility, and ballot receipt deadlines. The outcomes of these cases can have significant implications for voting rights, election integrity, and public confidence in the democratic process.

Counting absentee ballots sent before Election Day but received after

The counting of absentee ballots sent before Election Day but received afterward is a highly contested topic in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have blocked federal court rulings that extend ballot receipt deadlines, but they have allowed extensions issued by state legislatures, state officials, and state courts to stand.

As of October 28, 18 states and Washington, D.C., will count absentee ballots received after Election Day. However, this has been a subject of ongoing litigation in certain states, such as Pennsylvania, where election officials will segregate valid absentee ballots received after Election Day. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of counting late-arriving ballots, but this decision was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issue of counting absentee ballots received after Election Day has also been addressed by Judicial Watch, a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. They have filed lawsuits against states like California, Mississippi, and Illinois, arguing that it is unlawful to count ballots received after the designated "day for the election." The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with this interpretation, rejecting appeals to extend the counting of votes received after Election Day.

The debate surrounding the counting of absentee ballots sent before Election Day but received afterward highlights the complex interplay between federal and state laws governing elections in the United States. While federal law designates a singular "day for the election," some states have statutes that allow for ballot receipt beyond this date, leading to legal challenges and court interventions.

Extending ballot receipt deadlines

The extension of ballot receipt deadlines has been a contentious issue in several states, including Indiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, California, and Illinois. In Indiana, a federal judge's order to extend the mail-in ballot receipt deadline was applauded by voting rights advocates. The judge ruled that ballots postmarked by November 3 could be counted if received on or before November 13, extending the statutory deadline of noon on Election Day.

In Pennsylvania, the ballot receipt deadline is also the subject of ongoing litigation. The state's Supreme Court ruled that valid absentee ballots received after Election Day should be segregated, as the deadline is still in dispute. The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked federal court rulings extending ballot receipt deadlines but has left extensions issued by state legislatures, officials, and state courts in place.

In Mississippi, a federal lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch, arguing that it was unlawful for the state to count ballots received after Election Day. The Fifth Circuit Court agreed with this position, citing that federal law designates a singular "day for the election," and thus, ballots must be received by state officials by that day.

California and Illinois have also faced legal challenges from Judicial Watch, which filed lawsuits against these states for counting ballots received after Election Day. These lawsuits argue that allowing ballots to be counted after the designated "Election Day" undermines the integrity of elections.

The extension of ballot receipt deadlines is a complex issue, with legal battles occurring across multiple states. While some courts have blocked extensions, others have allowed them, creating a varied landscape of rules and practices that voters must navigate.

Preventing voter fraud and election irregularities

While courts can change election laws, voter fraud is rare in the United States, and most allegations of fraud are baseless. Nevertheless, there are several measures in place to prevent voter fraud and election irregularities.

One way to prevent voter fraud is to strengthen voter ID requirements. Many states have already implemented stricter voter ID laws to help stop voter fraud. For example, it is a federal crime for non-citizens to register or vote in federal elections. States also have multiple systems in place to deter non-citizen voting.

Another way to prevent voter fraud is to ensure that the composition of the electorate is not altered. In many cases, authorities can artificially control the composition of an electorate to produce a foregone result. One way to do this is to move a large number of voters into the electorate before an election, such as by temporarily assigning them land. To prevent this, many countries have laws that require voters to have lived in an electoral district for a minimum period to be eligible to vote there. However, such laws can also disenfranchise certain groups, such as the homeless, travelers, students, and others with no fixed address.

To further prevent voter fraud, some have suggested requiring a voter's signature on the outer envelope of mail-in ballots. This signature can be compared to the voter's signature on file. Mail-in ballots have been the subject of much controversy, with some arguing that they increase the risk of voter fraud. However, extensive research reveals that fraud in mail-in ballots is exceedingly rare, and that mail-in ballots are secure and essential to holding safe elections.

Finally, election auditing can be used to prevent and detect voter fraud and election irregularities. Auditing refers to any review conducted after polls close to determine whether votes were counted accurately, whether proper procedures were followed, or both. Audits can include checking that the number of voters signed in at the polls matches the number of ballots, that seals on ballot boxes and storage rooms are intact, and that counts are accurately totaled.

Enforcing state voting rights acts

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson to enforce the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Act outlawed discriminatory voting practices, such as literacy tests, that were adopted in many southern states after the Civil War. Despite this, discriminatory voting practices have persisted, with African Americans facing barriers to voting, such as voter ID requirements, and continued intimidation and violence.

In response to this, several states have enacted State Voting Rights Acts (VRA) to provide protections for their constituents and prevent discriminatory voting practices and policies. These include California, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, New York, Connecticut, and Minnesota. Other states such as Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey are also making progress towards enacting similar legislation.

State VRAs are critical to protecting voters at the ballot box and ensuring fair and equal voting rights. They can prevent discrimination, expand opportunities for those disproportionately impacted by voter suppression, and address racial vote dilution. For example, state VRAs can require local governments with records of discrimination to prove that certain voting changes won't harm voters.

Legislators in Minnesota, Michigan, Maryland, New Jersey, and Florida are pursuing state voting rights acts to shore up voting rights protections after courts eroded federal safeguards. This is in response to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that stripped the government of a tool to stop voting bias by eliminating the requirement for "preclearance" from the federal government for major changes in how elections are held in jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting.

The role of federal courts in interpreting state constitutions

The US Constitution establishes a federal system of government, with power shared between the federal government and state governments. Each of these governments has its own court systems. The US Constitution also establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government, alongside the legislative and executive branches.

The judicial branch has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other cases involving federal laws. However, it depends on the executive branch to enforce court decisions. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, and below it are 13 appellate courts, or US courts of appeals, and 94 district or trial courts.

The US Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have blocked all federal court rulings extending ballot receipt deadlines but have left extensions issued by state legislatures, state officials, and state courts. For example, in Pennsylvania, election officials will segregate valid absentee ballots received after Election Day, as the state's ballot receipt deadline is still the subject of ongoing litigation.

In another instance, the Fifth Circuit rejected an appeal to undo a decision ending the counting of votes received after Election Day, confirming that federal law sets an "Election Day" and not an "Election Week".

Frequently asked questions