قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Tips and Tricks / The US Supreme Court allows restrictions on SC voting via email

The US Supreme Court allows restrictions on SC voting via email



However, the court stated that ballot papers cast prior to its action and received within two days of the decision cannot be rejected for failure to comply with the testimony. Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they did not count these ballots.

“This is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will be cautious of federal changes near the elections, even if they are made to cope with the burdens on voters caused by the pandemic,” said electoral law expert Rick Hasen, who serves as CNN Suffrage Analyst

Officials in several states were surprised by the USPS ban on seeing witness voices

South Carolina law requires voters who cast postal ballots to swear an oath that they are eligible to vote and that they will not receive voting assistance if they seal and sign their ballots, and that the oath is witnessed by another person which must be signed under the signature of the voter.

Democrats challenged the provision, arguing that due to the coronavirus outbreak, there is “overwhelming and undisputed evidence that the witness requirement, as applied during the pandemic, increases the risk of infection and transmission of Covid-19 and increases the right to vote unconstitutionally charged “. A lower court blocked the request.

Mail-in vs. Postal voting: what’s the difference?

Republicans argued before the Supreme Court that more than 150,000 postal ballot papers “have been sent out and each day increases the risk that ballot papers will be returned that, in erroneous dependence on the district court order, do not meet witness requirements.”

They said, “While COVID-19 may make a face-to-face vote less desirable, the courts cannot make decisions for individuals to stay home for their own safety against the state.”

Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained why he voted for Republicans. He said that a state assembly’s decision to “maintain or change electoral rules to normally tackle COVID-19 should not be reviewed by an unelected federal judiciary” and that the court has repeatedly stressed that federal courts should not make changes to state electoral rules close to an option.

He said the lower court “contradicted this principle”.


Source link