Republican Party Of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar

141 S. Ct. 732 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2; Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U. S. 70, 76, 121 S. Ct. 471, 148 L. Ed. 2d 366 (2000) (per curiam). The legislature permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day. The legislature made it clear that, in its judgment, the COVID-19 pandemic did not call for any change in the election-day deadline. In a law enacted in March 2020, the legislature addressed election-related issues caused by the pandemic, but it chose not to amend the deadline for the receipt of mailed ballots. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party (DPP) sued in state court. It argued that the court could extend the deadline through a vague clause in the State Constitution providing, in relevant part, that “elections shall be free and equal.” Art. I, §5. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed. The “free and equal” provision enabled the court to extend the deadline three days to accommodate concerns about postal delays. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decreed that mailed ballots need not be received by election day. Ballots were to be treated as timely if they are postmarked on or before election day and are received within three days thereafter. The court ordered that a ballot with no postmark or an illegible postmark must be regarded as timely if it is received by that same date. The court expressly acknowledged that the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous and that its abrogation of that rule was not based on an interpretation of the statute. The court conceded that the statutory deadline was constitutional on its face, but it claimed broad power to do what it thought was needed to respond to a “natural disaster,” and it justified its decree as necessary to protect voters’ rights under the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the State Constitution. Ps claimed that the state court decision violated the previously cited constitutional provisions, as well as the federal statute setting a uniform date for federal elections. P and the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania (DPP), agreed that the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision was a matter of national importance and urged us to grant review and to decide the issue before the election. P asked the court to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari, to expedite review, and to decide the constitutional question prior to the election. Not only did parties on both sides agree that the issue warranted certiorari, but there also was no question that petitioners faced irreparable harm. (141 S. Ct. 732 (2020))

141 S. Ct. 732 (2020) Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. also moved for leave to intervene.