10/30/2020 - 1 SCOTUS and Election Law Rulings

It seems to me a lot of people don't understand the US Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) role in our judicial system. I see complaints about inconsistent decisions being made by SCOTUS. "They ruled this way in Wisconsin, but that way in North Carolina?" Now, I'm no legal scholar, but I think this short explanation is where it's at. I'll address Justice Amy Coney Barrett not participating in some of these cases as an aside at the end.

SCOTUS will rule on cases regarding elections in states which come before it on two basis:

First, is what the state is doing in conformity to the U.S. Constitution? If what a state is doing isn't contrary to the Constitution, then that test is passed. The court might, on the other hand, strike down some action by some state if that action is unconstitutional, for example, denying persons the right to vote based on race, religion, or gender.

Second, if SCOTUS finds the action to be constitutional, then they can look and see if what the state is or is not doing is following the state's own constitution. It could be that a Secretary of State (or whichever other state official oversees elections) is doing something clearly contrary to state election law, or more commonly, that a judge has overstepped his or her authority, and is ordering state officials to act in a way that is not in compliance with the state's laws or constitution.

We only have one U.S. Constitution, but we have 50 different states, each with its own Constitution, and each with its own election laws. Those documents are not standardized between the different states. So something one state does might be perfectly legal, and the next one may try to carry on in exactly the same manner, but in the second case, it conflicts with the state's laws. SCOTUS would find the first acceptable and exactly the same issue unacceptable in the second. And because the state's guidance documents differ, you might be happy about how they ruled in North Carolina, but perturbed about the Wisconsin ruling, or vice versa. Blame the state's Constitutions and their dissimilar election laws, not SCOTUS.

Now, as for Justice Barrett. I've seen some frustration that in two election law cases currently being heard by SCOTUS, that she has recused herself. Some are glad to hear that, others, likely Trump supporters, are unhappy. It's not her job to make Trump supporters happy and or to rule in Trump's favor on a damned thing. She's there to do her job and to do it right. As near as I can tell, the cases in question were already underway and Justice Barrett couldn't play catch-up and do justice any service by rushing into these cases without all the facts. We should be glad, not mad, that she is placing doing her job with integrity and thoroughly above rushing in because a case has dire political implications.

And, finally, what the heck, people? No, all rulings don't go our way. That doesn't necessarily make Justices who don't rule the way we like the bad guy. It may mean they've determined some law or act is unconstitutional or contrary to state law. Be mad at bad laws and bad election officials. More often than not, that's where the problem lies.