Will the Supreme Court Be Deciding the Presidential Election?
Oct 29, 2024
auto_awesome
Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporters, dive into the critical role the Supreme Court may play in the upcoming presidential election. They discuss the court's cautious stance on election disputes, referencing past cases like Bush v. Gore. The rising focus on history and tradition in court decisions is explored, along with its implications for legal education. Additionally, they touch on controversial rulings in Pennsylvania and the potential impact of originalism on future court interpretations.
Concerns about the Supreme Court's ability to maintain political neutrality are intensified by its involvement in past election-related decisions like Bush v. Gore.
The Court's historical and originalist interpretation approach is making it challenging for lower courts to navigate modern electoral disputes effectively.
Deep dives
Impact of Supreme Court on Election Cases
Concerns exist regarding the Supreme Court's involvement in election-related cases as it approaches the 2024 presidential election. Many voters lack confidence in the Court's ability to remain politically neutral, especially in the context of significant historical decisions like Bush v. Gore, which was determined by a razor-thin margin of votes. Experts suggest that the legal frameworks and mathematics involved in current electoral disputes render a repeat of such an iconic case unlikely. Additionally, the Court's previous reluctance to engage in election-related challenges, as seen in the 2020 elections, indicates a desire to avoid creating further judicial chaos.
Limits on State and Federal Authority
The Supreme Court's approach has effectively narrowed the potential legal pathways for election disputes to reach its docket. A key example is the recent rejection of the independent state legislature theory in the Moore v. Harper case, which sought to limit the role of state courts in election law interpretations. Furthermore, the Purcell principle restricts federal judges from intervening in last-minute changes to state election laws, a measure intended to prevent confusion before elections. This paradigm suggests a judicial hesitance to disrupt state-driven electoral processes, even when constitutional issues arise.
Ongoing Election Litigation in Swing States
Swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania are currently experiencing significant legal activity concerning voting rules and ballot counts. In Georgia, a Republican-run election board's new regulations were quashed by the courts, avoiding potential confusion over ballot counting, while Pennsylvania is grappling with mail-in voting rules about ballot secrecy envelopes. The Republican Party in Pennsylvania is challenging the provisional ballot rules, arguing that improperly submitted ballots should be invalidated. These focusing issues indicate a heightened tension around voting rights and election integrity, reflecting broader national concerns.
The Role of History and Tradition in Judicial Decisions
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has increasingly leaned on historical context and originalist interpretations to inform its rulings across various contentious issues, including election laws. Justices are notably referencing historical precedents to substantiate their decisions, which has led to judges requiring independent historical research to navigate modern cases. This shift toward a history-driven approach complicates matters for lower court judges, who find themselves spending additional time researching to ensure their rulings align with this evolving judicial philosophy. Critics argue this trend toward historical grounding could hinder legal progress and complicate interpretations of contemporary law.
Greg Stohr, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter, discusses whether the Supreme Court will be making an election-determining decision in the US presidential race. Lydia Wheeler, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter, discusses how the court’s history and tradition focus is testing judges, lawyers and law schools. June Grasso hosts.