Read on Twitter
Also known as, governors can't just unilaterally change the election laws by fiat, allow ppl to vote after the election's over, & censor news about the election results--all w/out statutory authority. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf https://twitter.com/davidlnoll/status/1247305355400527872
The "majestic generalities" in question being the democratic process, the freedom of speech, the equal protection of the laws, and constitutionalism.
In this case a fedl court gave the plaintiffs something they didn't ask for: an order letting voters cast mail ballots after the election's over & forbidding speech abt the election results for days afterwards. Supreme Court says that's unconstitutional. If Wisconsin wants to
change its election laws, it can do so at the special session that'll convene shortly-which the S.Ct. doesn't interrupt.
Is it fair to characterize this as a big meanie heartless Supreme Court telling people to die in the streets?
Is it fair to characterize this as a big meanie heartless Supreme Court telling people to die in the streets?
Hey! Here's a GREAT idea! Let's just let governors change election laws by unilateral "emergency" decree! What could POSSIBLY go wrong with THAT?
Some states have election laws that provide for emergency changes. Here's a good article about that: https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-67/issue-3/articles/election-emergencies-voting-natural-disasters-terrorist-attacks.html Wisconsin doesn't have that. And WI legis. has explicitly declared that it's opposed to broadening mail-in voting. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2003/statutes/statutes/6/IV/84
Govn'rs execute the law. They have broad emergency pwr. But there're limits & elections are a darn good place to draw the line.
Wisconsin, BTW, didn't suspend elections even during the 1918 Spanish Flu, which the Wis bd of health called "the most disastrous calamity that has ever been visited upon the people of Wisconsin." https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS2479
