Moore v. Circosta Best Lawyers in Chandigarh

Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2020) 1 GORSUCH, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 20A72 _________________ TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. v. DAMON CIRCOSTA, CHAIR, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [October 28, 2020] The application for injunctive relief presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is denied. JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or deci- sion of this application. JUSTICE THOMAS would grant the application. JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, dis- senting from denial of application for injunctive relief. This summer, the General Assembly of North Carolina adopted new election laws expressly designed to address the challenges COVID posed to a fast-approaching election. Among other things, the General Assembly reduced the wit- ness requirement for absentee ballots from two witnesses to one, N. C. Sess. Laws 2020–17 §1.(a); freed up more indi- viduals to staff polling centers, §1.(b); created a mechanism to allow voters to track their ballots, §3.(a); enabled voters to request absentee ballots online, §7.(a); and increased funding to ensure the State’s in-person and absentee voting infrastructure could withstand “the coronavirus pandemic,” §11.1(a)–(f ). At the same time, the General Assembly judged it appropriate to retain certain other existing elec- tion rules, like the State’s deadline for the receipt of absen- tee ballots. Accordingly, under state law, absentee ballots must be postmarked on or before election day, and they must be received “not later than three days after” election 2 MOORE v. CIRCOSTA GORSUCH, J., dissenting day. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §163–231(b)(2)b (2019). Despite the General Assembly’s considered judgment about the appropriate response to COVID, other state actors—including the State Board of Elections—recently chose to issue their own additional and supplemental set of amendments to state election laws. Relevant here, they purported to extend the absentee ballot receipt deadline by six days, up to November 12. That last part should sound familiar. Just days ago, this Court rejected a similar effort to rewrite a state legisla- ture’s election deadlines. Wisconsin (like North Carolina) has a ballot receipt deadline enshrined in statute. All the same, a federal district court decided to order Wisconsin to extend its deadline by six days. The Seventh Circuit stayed that ruling, and we agreed with its disposition. For many of the same reasons I believe that decision was correct, I believe we should stay the Board’s action here. See Demo- cratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature, 592 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., concurring). In some respects, this case may be even more egregious, given that a state court and the Board worked together to over- ride a carefully tailored legislative response to COVID. In- deed, the president pro tempore of the North Carolina Sen- ate and the speaker of its House of Representatives have intervened on behalf of the General Assembly to oppose re- visions to its work. The parties before us all acknowledge that, under the Federal Constitution, only ...

Original document

Best Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court