Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Wisconsin case is sloppy AF.

(A thread.)

Merrill II is a weird citation here, as the Supreme Court intervened to allow a state election official to unilaterally implement a voter restriction — a ban on curbside voting — that was ~no where~ in the state’s code.

Wrong! Vermont has made a major change: it’s mailing everyone a ballot! There’s almost no risk of someone receiving a ballot when it’s too late to mail it in, as is the case in Wisconsin.
https://twitter.com/srl/status/1320914198378020864
https://twitter.com/VermontSOS/status/1320920521421324289

This analogy makes no sense. The WI deadline is receipt deadline, not a submission deadline. The in-person voting equivalent is if someone showed up at their polling place before it officially closed but — due to long lines — didn’t get to cast their ballot until after midnight.

This quote is in the context of an argument for moving ~several~ dates up in the timeline – request dates, dates to begin processing — not just the receipt deadline. WI hasn’t moved up those other dates, and its request and processing timelines among the latest in the country.

Again, it’s hard to argue that an election day receipt deadline is justified for the purposes of turning around quick results when Wisconsin’s legislature has resisted calls to its tweak processing timelines in a way that will deliver quick results.

In Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., the court said that it was “declin[ing]” to review the very question Kavanaugh is queuing up. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/70/

Another analogy that makes no sense! The IRS April 15 deadline is a submission deadline, not a receipt deadline.

There is actually a widespread fear that voters will assume mail moves quickly enough to match the request deadlines. That’s why USPS sent all those states those letters telling them they should change their deadlines!

Again, Kavanaugh is conflating a receipt deadline with a submission deadline.

This back up plan really isn't a good failsafe.
1. it assumes voters will actually be able to get in touch w/election officials to tell them they want to spoil the mail ballots already in the mail on their way back to elections offices

2. In other states, like PA, the voter in the scenario Kavanaugh describes will have to vote provisionally... which will further delay the process of tabulating the results.

One final gripe: this is a very rich way to describe how the shadow docket has operated during the pandemic. Only occasionally have the justices explained why they voted to put on hold lower court orders making voting easier and not always as part of majority/per curium opinion