Clarence Thomas promotes Donald Trump's big lie about voter fraud.
Justice Clarence Thomas is not backing down from the fight to legitimize Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was rife with fraud. On Monday morning, Thomas issued a startling opinion ranting against the alleged dangers of mail voting and declaring that SCOTUS must override state courts that expand vote by mail pursuant to their state constitutions. Trump may be out of office, but his staunchest ally on the U.S. Supreme Court is carrying on his assault on the legitimacy of the election.
Thomas’ grievances arise out of two identical challenges to Pennsylvania’s election procedures. The state Legislature set a strict deadline for mail voting: Any ballot received after 8 p.m. on Election Day must be thrown out. In September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, in light of the pandemic and the Postal Service slowdown, this deadline would disenfranchise many voters through no fault of their own. Specifically, the court found that the deadline violated the Pennsylvania Constitution, which requires that all elections be “free and equal.” To safeguard this right, the majority extended the mail ballot deadline by three days.
SCOTUS’s conservative justices were so furious about the Pennsylvania decision that they attempted to shatter states’ authority to run their own elections. In October, Thomas—joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—accused the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of infringing on the Legislature’s authority to set election law. They asserted that, under the U.S. Constitution, federal courts can override state courts’ interpretation of election codes based on their own sense of what the state legislature prefers. Yet these four justices never found a fifth vote: Amy Coney Barrett joined the court too late to weigh in, and Chief Justice John Roberts refused to go along with this hijacking of state election law. In the end, late-arriving ballots were counted, though they did not change the outcome of any federal race in Pennsylvania, including the presidential contest.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementIt makes sense, then, that SCOTUS refused to hear these cases on Monday. They are plainly moot, because the election is over, and there is no longer any live controversy to settle. Still, three justices—Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—dissented from the court’s decision to turn away the Pennsylvania cases.
In his dissent, Thomas cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election by questioning the security of mail voting. “Voting by mail was traditionally limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent,” he wrote. The current trend toward more “permissive” mail voting, the justice warned, “vastly” increases “the risk of fraud.” Thomas drew heavily from a 2012 New York Times article focusing on Florida’s mail voting regime, which focused on a handful of fraudulent schemes involving mail ballots. The justice also pointed to a Republican operative’s criminal attempt to steal an election in North Carolina using mail ballots.
AdvertisementIn reality, this kind of voter fraud is vanishingly rare, and its few perpetrators have been caught and prosecuted. An unprecedented number of states allowed everyone to vote by mail in 2020, and election security officials in Trump’s own administrationdeemed it “the most secure in American history.” This did not stop Thomas from condemning mail voting as a threat to “election confidence.” In a strikingly cynical move, the justice argued that laws curtailing mail voting may be justified without proof of fraud to prevent “the appearance of corruption.” He drew this standard from the campaign finance context, in which the court has upheld limits on political spending to bolster public confidence that lawmakers are not corrupt. According to Thomas, that doctrine also allows states to crack down on vote by mail even “where allegations” of fraud are “incorrect.” Why? To guard against the mere “appearance of corruption.” He added:
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementWe are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud. But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence. Also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected.
In other words, the fact that election officials uncovered virtually no fraud in 2020 does not prove that no fraud existed. It might just mean that fraud is difficult to detect. If this line sounds familiar, that’s because it is what Trump and his allies argued when seeking to undermine public confidence in the election results.
Somehow, this concern about fraud only applies to elections in Thomas’ world. The justice actually rejects the argument that campaign finance reforms may be justified to prevent the “appearance of corruption.” He is transplanting a doctrine that he does not support into a new context to shore up the legality of voter suppression laws. In the process, he is bolstering Trump’s paranoid attacks on mail voting, lending judicial credence to two foundational elements of the big lie: First, that vote by mail is inherently unsafe and insecure, and second, that fraudulent mail-voting schemes may be rampant yet “undetected,” vindicating Trump’s ridiculous claims that his voters are right to doubt the outcome of the presidential race.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Here we have the spectacle of three conservative justices betraying every known principle of conservative jurisprudence.Even Alito, joined by Gorsuch, was not willing to go as far as Thomas. In a separate dissent, he agreed that SCOTUS should take up these cases because they “present an important and recurring constitutional question.” We can only guess why Kavanaugh and Barrett declined to side with their fellow conservatives, especially since Kavanaugh has previously expressed Trump-like skepticism about mail voting. Perhaps neither justice wants to take on this controversial issue now that it’s essentially irrelevant. They may choose to wait until 2022 or 2024, when they can potentially alter the outcome of a race—and when Democrats may no longer control Congress, ruling out the possibility of court expansion.
AdvertisementToday, of course, Democrats do have the opportunity to expand the court, and those lawmakers who oppose judicial reform should look carefully at Monday’s opinions. Here we have the spectacle of three conservative justices betraying every known principle of conservative jurisprudence in an effort to prevent states from safeguarding suffrage in the future. These justices have spent years insisting that federal courts must not alter voting procedures in the run-up to an election; they then tried to alter Pennsylvania’s voting rules two weeks before Nov. 3 to nullify thousands of mail ballots (which skewed Democratic). Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch now wish to exploit a moot case to award themselves immense power to override state courts and state constitutions to restrict mail voting and other reforms.
AdvertisementPopular in News & Politics
- The Meltdown in Michigan Says It All About Where MAGA Is Headed
- Donald Trump’s Lawyer Helped Make Alvin Bragg’s Case for Him
- A Great American Con Led to the Mess on College Campuses. Everyone Fell for It—Again.
- There’s One Part of Brittney Griner’s Account of Life in Russian Prison That Really Stands Out
This approach is a radical overreach on a subject that was never seriously up for debate before the Trump era. We should not be comforted by the fact these justices are still in the minority: We know Kavanaugh agrees with them on the merits, so they only need Barrett’s vote to seize a majority, and her views on this subject are simply unknown. And even though they are in dissent, they are handing Republican-controlled state legislatures a rationale for new voter suppression laws by contributing to alleged mistrust in election integrity.
Democrats currently appear to lack the votes to expand the court. By declining to take action, the party is assenting to decades of rule by crass partisans like Thomas. Democrats may complain about the tsunami of voter suppression laws that Republicans are instituting in the wake of 2020, but they currently have an opportunity to end this wave of disenfranchisement by creating a majority of justices who believe in the right to vote. So far, they have passed it up. This inertia leaves the nation with a Supreme Court with at leastfour justices who are sympathetic to elements of Trump’s big lie. As long as they hold so much power on the bench, every federal election will remain at risk of subversion by judicial decree.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:行业动态)
-
广州市白云区供销联社携手6所院校15支队伍,加力提速推进“百千万工程”
广州市白云区供销联社携手6所院校15支队伍,加力提速推进“百千万工程”_南方+_南方plus今年以来,广州市白云区供销联社与6所院校15支突击队结对,依托下属区级助农服务综合平台和镇村级助农服务中心, ...[详细] -
雅安日报/北纬网讯近日,市经济和信息化委员会召开会议,传达学习省委十一届三次全会和市委常委会扩大)会议精神,提出经信系统要切实把握重点、结合工作实际,着力推动省委全会决策部署落地落实。我市经信部门将制 ...[详细]
-
粤桂协作:一条“忻丝路”,直通富裕路_南方+_南方plus时下桑叶吐绿旺盛生长,广西来宾市忻城县各乡镇蚕农走进桑田采摘桑叶,在种桑、养蚕、缫丝的产业链中“破茧新生”。从传统养蚕到标准化、智能化,从单一 ...[详细]
-
学生武术操表演名山三中第二届校园文化艺术节武术表演2018年四川省学生武术锦标赛名山三中师生合影学生在主题晚会上表演武术“嘿哈!”6月15日上午,雅安市名山区第三中学以下简称:名山三中)校园内一声声铿 ...[详细]
-
NASA rover snaps photo of its most daunting challenge yet
A car-sized NASA rover, weighing over a ton, will scale a crater wall.The space agency announced tha ...[详细] -
“如果我认真按照医生的话坚持治疗,病情不至于发展成这样。”6月21日,在雅安仁康医院肾内科进行血液透析的朱成芳化名)说,在还没有发展成尿毒症前,她就被查出肾脏问题,经过治疗后病情得到控制;但她出院后擅 ...[详细]
-
雅安日报/北纬网讯为坚决打赢“今冬明春蓝天保卫战”,强化建筑施工安全生产工作,11月5日,市住建局组织召开中心城区建筑工地扬尘治理暨今冬明春安全生产专题会,对近期建筑工地扬尘污染防治及安全生产工作中的 ...[详细]
-
雅安日报/北纬网讯秋风飒爽,红叶烂漫,眼下,全省各地相继进入红叶最佳观赏期。10月18日,记者从2018四川红叶生态旅游节暨第二届二郎山红叶节新闻通气会上获悉,第二届二郎山红叶节将于本月25日开幕,持 ...[详细]
-
What to expect from Apple's September event: iPhone 16, Apple Watch 10, and more
Apple's big September event is fast approaching, bringing us all the latest gadget goodies from the ...[详细] -
打造粤东全果品保鲜基地!天业冷链赋能平远脐橙加工产业链_南方+_南方plus金秋时节,站在小山坡上朝远处眺望,除了满目郁郁葱葱,其间还点缀着亮眼金黄色,这里是被誉为“广东脐橙之乡”的梅州市平远县。据了 ...[详细]