Court of Appeal delay could have ‘drastic consequences’ for elections – Lawyer

An appeals court ruling on absentee ballots could have a devastating effect on U.S. elections, a legal analyst said.

Republicans are currently challenging Mississippi’s absentee voting rules before the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If successful, it could impact absentee voting rules and have a drastic effect across the U.S., says attorney Joyce Vance.

On September 24, 2024, a Fifth Circuit panel heard oral arguments RNC v. Wetzela case in Mississippi involving absentee ballots by mail. Mississippi will accept ballots delivered up to five business days after an election, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.

The Republican National Committee has argued that this “effectively extends the federal election in Mississippi beyond the election day established by Congress” and results in valid ballots being “diluted by early, invalid ballots.” The RNC is challenging Justin Wetzel, the clerk and clerk of the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi.

Republicans have challenged absentee ballot rules in several Southern states, saying absentee voters are more likely to vote for Democrats.

Vance wrote that the 5th Circuit may decide there is not enough time to change the rules for the upcoming presidential election, but could change them for future elections.

“The panel could reject the RNC’s request to change the rules for this election… but could give the argument about limiting voting to Election Day momentum for future elections.”

“Such a decision could have drastic consequences if adopted by the Supreme Court,” Vance wrote in her legal blog on the website Cafe.com.

The Fifth Circuit hears appeals from federal district courts in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

Vance, a former federal prosecutor and frequent critic of Donald Trump, wrote that she was concerned about the 5th Circuit’s delay in reaching a decision.

“So why hasn’t the Court of Appeals ruled quickly? Why not deny the RNC’s request and provide certainty ahead of the election?” she asked.

“People should not be forced through hoops to vote, which limiting voting options does.”

She said she doesn’t want Mississippi and other states to adopt Alabama’s strict rules on absentee ballots. “Few states are as extreme as Alabama, which requires you to vote in person on Election Day unless you sign an affidavit under oath stating that you will be out of state due to work or are too ill to vote in person on Election Day to vote – only then is that possible. you get an absentee ballot,” she said.

“These types of cases are a key part of Republican efforts to deter people they think won’t vote for them from voting. It’s been 20 years since Republicans last won the popular vote in a presidential election, and with that trend they’ve turned to voter suppression, often involving the passage of rules that make it harder for people to vote, is justified by claiming that they are necessary to prevent fraud – except that there is no evidence for this.

“The argument in the Mississippi case is another piece of spaghetti that they throw against the wall to see if it sticks.”

Newsweek asked the Republican National Committee for email comments on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Georgia’s Supreme Court rejected a new rule introduced by the Republican-led Board of Elections that forced election workers to manually count each ballot.

Ezra Rosenberg, co-director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, said Newsweek that Republicans cannot appeal the decision before Election Day.

“We expect there will be an appeal, but not on an emergency basis that would go into effect before the end of Georgia’s elections,” he said.

“The actions of the State Election Board are extreme and speak for themselves. Manually counting ballots is prone to errors and can significantly delay the certification of valid election results while causing confusion.”

Newsweek asked the Georgia State Election Board for email comments on Wednesday.

“Election officials should be trained to implement the cumbersome process that the State Election Board tried to impose, even though it was a lawful arrangement, and it is too late in the election season for that. It was a wrong move by the board of directors. majority that it did not have the authority to create in the first place,” Rosenberg said.