Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious OutperformanceFind Stocks Now

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to block North Carolina absentee ballot extension

Published 10/28/2020, 07:45 PM
Updated 10/28/2020, 09:20 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The Supreme Court of the United States is seen in Washington, D.C.

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request by President Donald Trump's campaign to block North Carolina's extension of the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots in the latest voting case ahead of Tuesday's election.

The justices left in place a lower court-approved agreement allowing the extension, rebuffing a request by Trump's campaign, the Republican National Committee and North Carolina Republican officials for an injunction to block it.

The state election board, citing potential U.S. Postal Service mail delivery delays, opted to allow absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrived up to nine days later.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have blocked the deadline extension,

In a dissenting opinion, Gorsuch said last-minute rule changes by a state election board can "invite confusion, risk altering election outcomes, and in the process, threaten voter confidence in the results." The election board impermissibly rewrote state election laws, a power reserved to the legislature, he wrote.

The decision in the North Carolina case was the second setback for Republicans after the justices earlier on Wednesday declined to fast track a decision on whether to hear a Republican bid to block an extended mail-in ballots deadline in Pennsylvania. Both states are to pivotal to Trump's re-election chances.

The court's newest justice, Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, did not participate in either case. She did not have time to fully review the case filings, a court spokeswoman said in a statement.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

The North Carolina dispute is among a number of election-related lawsuits in states around the country over rules governing voting in the Nov. 3 election. Americans are casting early ballots at a record-breaking pace that could lead to the highest voter turnout by percentage in more than a century.

Many states have expanded mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic, with voters wary about the spread of the virus at crowded polling places.

Trump has made unfounded claims that voting by mail - a common practice in U.S. elections - is rife with fraud. Such fraud is exceptionally rare in the United States, according to experts.

The North Carolina dispute centered on an agreement by the state election board, approved by a state court on Oct. 2, to extend the absentee ballot deadline after advocacy groups filed a legal challenge.

The Trump campaign and state Republicans sought an injunction in federal court but on Oct. 20, in a 12-3 vote, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the request, saying that under Supreme Court precedent, federal courts must refrain from disturbing state election rules so close to an election.

Latest comments

In the states where the early voting data can be compare to voter registration records, it's showing that over 20% of the early voters are new and they didn't vote in 2016. So if we assume early voters are half of total voters, that means 10% of the total votes are NEW early voters..............Among these new early voters Democrats far outnumber GOP, by 20%, so you can say in total votes the new voters will give Biden 20%x10% = 2% lead, again, these are IN ADDITION to the people who voted in 2016............. To put in context, Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan, PA by 1% or less in 2016.....So if Biden wins these 3 states he got the presidency, no matter what happens in Florida or Arizona or North Carolina or Georgia.............No wonder Trump team is so desperate to discount as many early votes as possible.....
Scotus isn't consistent as they reversed this same issue in Wisconsin.
Surprise! No consistency.
Link a reference
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.