'Rulings on Wisconsin Election Raise Questions About Judicial Partisanship' diff viewer (0/1)

This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on April 07, 2020 22:06 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/us/politics/wisconsin-elections-supreme-court.html

The article has changed 29 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next version

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next version

Version 0	Version 1
Rulings on Wisconsin Election Raise Questions About Judicial Partisanship	Rulings on Wisconsin Election Raise Questions About Judicial Partisanship
2020-04-07 22:06:18 UTC	2020-06-08 08:56:27 UTC (2 months later)
WASHINGTON — In a pair of extraordinary rulings on Monday, the highest courts in Wisconsin and the nation split along ideological lines to reject Democratic efforts to defer voting in Tuesday’s elections in the state given the coronavirus pandemic. Election law experts said the stark divisions in the rulings did not bode well for faith in the rule of law and American democracy.	WASHINGTON — In a pair of extraordinary rulings on Monday, the highest courts in Wisconsin and the nation split along ideological lines to reject Democratic efforts to defer voting in Tuesday’s elections in the state given the coronavirus pandemic. Election law experts said the stark divisions in the rulings did not bode well for faith in the rule of law and American democracy.
“Election cases, more than any other kind, need courts to be seen by the public as nonpartisan referees of the competing candidates and political parties,” said Edward B. Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University. “It is therefore extremely regrettable that on the very same day, on separate issues involving the same Wisconsin election, both the state and federal supreme courts were unable to escape split votes that seem just as politically divided as the litigants appearing before them.”	“Election cases, more than any other kind, need courts to be seen by the public as nonpartisan referees of the competing candidates and political parties,” said Edward B. Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University. “It is therefore extremely regrettable that on the very same day, on separate issues involving the same Wisconsin election, both the state and federal supreme courts were unable to escape split votes that seem just as politically divided as the litigants appearing before them.”
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of a recently published and prescient book, “Election Meltdown,” said the pandemic had made a bad situation much worse.	Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of a recently published and prescient book, “Election Meltdown,” said the pandemic had made a bad situation much worse.
“Monday’s performance by the courts augurs a nasty partisan divide in the judicial branch,” Professor Hasen said. “It threatens the legitimacy of both the election and the courts.”	“Monday’s performance by the courts augurs a nasty partisan divide in the judicial branch,” Professor Hasen said. “It threatens the legitimacy of both the election and the courts.”
“Already before the coronavirus crisis, 2020 was shaping up to be a record-setting year for election litigation,” he said. “Covid-19 means there will be even more lawsuits than before over issues like absentee ballot protocols and the safety of in-person voting.”	“Already before the coronavirus crisis, 2020 was shaping up to be a record-setting year for election litigation,” he said. “Covid-19 means there will be even more lawsuits than before over issues like absentee ballot protocols and the safety of in-person voting.”
When the Supreme Court rules on emergency applications, it almost never gives reasons. But the court’s conservative majority on Monday spent four pages explaining why it had refused to extend absentee voting in Tuesday’s elections in Wisconsin.	When the Supreme Court rules on emergency applications, it almost never gives reasons. But the court’s conservative majority on Monday spent four pages explaining why it had refused to extend absentee voting in Tuesday’s elections in Wisconsin.
What prompted the break with the court’s usual practices? It may have been the optics, which were certainly ugly, with the court’s five Republican appointees outvoting its four Democratic ones to deliver a victory to Wisconsin Republicans.	What prompted the break with the court’s usual practices? It may have been the optics, which were certainly ugly, with the court’s five Republican appointees outvoting its four Democratic ones to deliver a victory to Wisconsin Republicans.
The majority may have also felt a need to address Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s blistering dissent, which said the court’s reasoning “boggles the mind.”	The majority may have also felt a need to address Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s blistering dissent, which said the court’s reasoning “boggles the mind.”
In response, the majority methodically walked through what it called “a narrow, technical question about the absentee ballot process.”	In response, the majority methodically walked through what it called “a narrow, technical question about the absentee ballot process.”
Justice Ginsburg said that approach trivialized “a matter of utmost importance.”	Justice Ginsburg said that approach trivialized “a matter of utmost importance.”
The contrasting visions of the two sides, one viewing the case as minor and technical and the other as an effort to vindicate a fundamental constitutional value, amounted to a deep disagreement about the judicial role in voting rights cases.	The contrasting visions of the two sides, one viewing the case as minor and technical and the other as an effort to vindicate a fundamental constitutional value, amounted to a deep disagreement about the judicial role in voting rights cases.
In public comments, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. often insists that the justices “don’t work as Democrats or Republicans.” But he and his fellow Republican appointees have frequently voted to restrict voting rights in ways that have primarily helped Republicans.	In public comments, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. often insists that the justices “don’t work as Democrats or Republicans.” But he and his fellow Republican appointees have frequently voted to restrict voting rights in ways that have primarily helped Republicans.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, for instance, in Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 voting rights decision that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act by a 5-to-4 vote. Freed from the act’s constraints, states controlled by Republicans almost immediately started imposing an array of restrictions on voting, including voter ID laws, cutbacks on early voting and purges of voter registration rolls.	Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, for instance, in Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 voting rights decision that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act by a 5-to-4 vote. Freed from the act’s constraints, states controlled by Republicans almost immediately started imposing an array of restrictions on voting, including voter ID laws, cutbacks on early voting and purges of voter registration rolls.
Some scholars said the public should not assume that the justices were driven by partisanship rather than their judicial philosophies.	Some scholars said the public should not assume that the justices were driven by partisanship rather than their judicial philosophies.
“It’s unfortunate that both the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Court rulings broke down the way they did, because it lends credence to the perception that law is increasingly no different than politics,” said Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the Cato Institute, the libertarian group. “But the decisions weren’t partisan.”	“It’s unfortunate that both the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Court rulings broke down the way they did, because it lends credence to the perception that law is increasingly no different than politics,” said Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the Cato Institute, the libertarian group. “But the decisions weren’t partisan.”
“Republican-appointed judges tend to want to apply the law as written, while Democrat-appointed ones want to see ‘justice’ done, even if it means bending the rules,” he said. “In the Wisconsin context, Republican-affiliated judges would leave any decision to delay the election or change its operation to the Legislature, while Democrat-affiliated ones want to fix the problem themselves.”	“Republican-appointed judges tend to want to apply the law as written, while Democrat-appointed ones want to see ‘justice’ done, even if it means bending the rules,” he said. “In the Wisconsin context, Republican-affiliated judges would leave any decision to delay the election or change its operation to the Legislature, while Democrat-affiliated ones want to fix the problem themselves.”
“I agree with the former approach,” Mr. Shapiro said, “because, even in a pandemic, we shouldn’t cast aside the rule of law or the separation of powers.”	“I agree with the former approach,” Mr. Shapiro said, “because, even in a pandemic, we shouldn’t cast aside the rule of law or the separation of powers.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, striking down an executive order from Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, that would have delayed Tuesday’s elections, said it was adhering to neutral legal principles.	The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, striking down an executive order from Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, that would have delayed Tuesday’s elections, said it was adhering to neutral legal principles.
“The question presented to this court is whether the governor has the authority to suspend or rewrite state election laws,” the unsigned opinion said. “Although we recognize the extreme seriousness of the pandemic that this state is currently facing, we conclude that he does not.”	“The question presented to this court is whether the governor has the authority to suspend or rewrite state election laws,” the unsigned opinion said. “Although we recognize the extreme seriousness of the pandemic that this state is currently facing, we conclude that he does not.”
In dissent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said that reasoning ignored reality. “The majority gives Wisconsinites an untenable choice: Endanger your safety and potentially your life by voting or give up your right to vote by heeding the recent and urgent warnings about the fast-growing pandemic,” she wrote. “These orders are but another example of this court’s unmitigated support of efforts to disenfranchise voters.”	In dissent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said that reasoning ignored reality. “The majority gives Wisconsinites an untenable choice: Endanger your safety and potentially your life by voting or give up your right to vote by heeding the recent and urgent warnings about the fast-growing pandemic,” she wrote. “These orders are but another example of this court’s unmitigated support of efforts to disenfranchise voters.”
	Updated June 5, 2020
	The unemployment rate fell to 13.3 percent in May, the Labor Department said on June 5, an unexpected improvement in the nation’s job market as hiring rebounded faster than economists expected. Economists had forecast the unemployment rate to increase to as much as 20 percent, after it hit 14.7 percent in April, which was the highest since the government began keeping official statistics after World War II. But the unemployment rate dipped instead, with employers adding 2.5 million jobs, after more than 20 million jobs were lost in April.
	Mass protests against police brutality that have brought thousands of people onto the streets in cities across America are raising the specter of new coronavirus outbreaks, prompting political leaders, physicians and public health experts to warn that the crowds could cause a surge in cases. While many political leaders affirmed the right of protesters to express themselves, they urged the demonstrators to wear face masks and maintain social distancing, both to protect themselves and to prevent further community spread of the virus. Some infectious disease experts were reassured by the fact that the protests were held outdoors, saying the open air settings could mitigate the risk of transmission.
	Exercise researchers and physicians have some blunt advice for those of us aiming to return to regular exercise now: Start slowly and then rev up your workouts, also slowly. American adults tended to be about 12 percent less active after the stay-at-home mandates began in March than they were in January. But there are steps you can take to ease your way back into regular exercise safely. First, “start at no more than 50 percent of the exercise you were doing before Covid,” says Dr. Monica Rho, the chief of musculoskeletal medicine at the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago. Thread in some preparatory squats, too, she advises. “When you haven’t been exercising, you lose muscle mass.” Expect some muscle twinges after these preliminary, post-lockdown sessions, especially a day or two later. But sudden or increasing pain during exercise is a clarion call to stop and return home.
	States are reopening bit by bit. This means that more public spaces are available for use and more and more businesses are being allowed to open again. The federal government is largely leaving the decision up to states, and some state leaders are leaving the decision up to local authorities. Even if you aren’t being told to stay at home, it’s still a good idea to limit trips outside and your interaction with other people.
	Touching contaminated objects and then infecting ourselves with the germs is not typically how the virus spreads. But it can happen. A number of studies of flu, rhinovirus, coronavirus and other microbes have shown that respiratory illnesses, including the new coronavirus, can spread by touching contaminated surfaces, particularly in places like day care centers, offices and hospitals. But a long chain of events has to happen for the disease to spread that way. The best way to protect yourself from coronavirus — whether it’s surface transmission or close human contact — is still social distancing, washing your hands, not touching your face and wearing masks.
	Common symptoms include fever, a dry cough, fatigue and difficulty breathing or shortness of breath. Some of these symptoms overlap with those of the flu, making detection difficult, but runny noses and stuffy sinuses are less common. The C.D.C. has also added chills, muscle pain, sore throat, headache and a new loss of the sense of taste or smell as symptoms to look out for. Most people fall ill five to seven days after exposure, but symptoms may appear in as few as two days or as many as 14 days.
	If air travel is unavoidable, there are some steps you can take to protect yourself. Most important: Wash your hands often, and stop touching your face. If possible, choose a window seat. A study from Emory University found that during flu season, the safest place to sit on a plane is by a window, as people sitting in window seats had less contact with potentially sick people. Disinfect hard surfaces. When you get to your seat and your hands are clean, use disinfecting wipes to clean the hard surfaces at your seat like the head and arm rest, the seatbelt buckle, the remote, screen, seat back pocket and the tray table. If the seat is hard and nonporous or leather or pleather, you can wipe that down, too. (Using wipes on upholstered seats could lead to a wet seat and spreading of germs rather than killing them.)
	Taking one’s temperature to look for signs of fever is not as easy as it sounds, as “normal” temperature numbers can vary, but generally, keep an eye out for a temperature of 100.5 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. If you don’t have a thermometer (they can be pricey these days), there are other ways to figure out if you have a fever, or are at risk of Covid-19 complications.
	The C.D.C. has recommended that all Americans wear cloth masks if they go out in public. This is a shift in federal guidance reflecting new concerns that the coronavirus is being spread by infected people who have no symptoms. Until now, the C.D.C., like the W.H.O., has advised that ordinary people don’t need to wear masks unless they are sick and coughing. Part of the reason was to preserve medical-grade masks for health care workers who desperately need them at a time when they are in continuously short supply. Masks don’t replace hand washing and social distancing.
	If you’ve been exposed to the coronavirus or think you have, and have a fever or symptoms like a cough or difficulty breathing, call a doctor. They should give you advice on whether you should be tested, how to get tested, and how to seek medical treatment without potentially infecting or exposing others.
	If you’re sick and you think you’ve been exposed to the new coronavirus, the C.D.C. recommends that you call your healthcare provider and explain your symptoms and fears. They will decide if you need to be tested. Keep in mind that there’s a chance — because of a lack of testing kits or because you’re asymptomatic, for instance — you won’t be able to get tested.
Richard H. Pildes, a law professor at New York University, said judicial philosophy helped explain Monday’s ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. “I’d say ‘liberal’ judges are more comfortable with federal courts crafting what they see as pragmatic, ad hoc responses to extraordinary election circumstances,” he said, “while ‘conservative’ judges believe that federal courts should retain as much of the pre-existing rule structure — such as that absentee ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day — as possible.”	Richard H. Pildes, a law professor at New York University, said judicial philosophy helped explain Monday’s ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. “I’d say ‘liberal’ judges are more comfortable with federal courts crafting what they see as pragmatic, ad hoc responses to extraordinary election circumstances,” he said, “while ‘conservative’ judges believe that federal courts should retain as much of the pre-existing rule structure — such as that absentee ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day — as possible.”
That was how the majority in Monday’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court framed the question before it, addressing only whether a federal judge was authorized to extend the deadline for mailing absentee ballots.	That was how the majority in Monday’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court framed the question before it, addressing only whether a federal judge was authorized to extend the deadline for mailing absentee ballots.
“The court’s decision on the narrow question before the court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the broader question of whether to hold the election, or whether other reforms or modifications in election procedures in light of Covid-19 are appropriate,” the unsigned opinion said. “That point cannot be stressed enough.”	“The court’s decision on the narrow question before the court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the broader question of whether to hold the election, or whether other reforms or modifications in election procedures in light of Covid-19 are appropriate,” the unsigned opinion said. “That point cannot be stressed enough.”
In dissent, Justice Ginsburg broadened the lens. “While I do not doubt the good faith of my colleagues,” she wrote, “the court’s order, I fear, will result in massive disenfranchisement.”	In dissent, Justice Ginsburg broadened the lens. “While I do not doubt the good faith of my colleagues,” she wrote, “the court’s order, I fear, will result in massive disenfranchisement.”
The court will almost certainly have many opportunities to weigh in on election disputes this year, and some scholars said Monday’s decision was a worrying signal. “The court’s decision is an ominous harbinger for what the court might allow in November in the general election,” Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in The Atlantic.	The court will almost certainly have many opportunities to weigh in on election disputes this year, and some scholars said Monday’s decision was a worrying signal. “The court’s decision is an ominous harbinger for what the court might allow in November in the general election,” Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in The Atlantic.
Cases on voting by mail are likely, as are ones on access to polling places. The nightmare scenario, some scholars said, would be litigation over recounts in the wake of a close election marred by irregularities.	Cases on voting by mail are likely, as are ones on access to polling places. The nightmare scenario, some scholars said, would be litigation over recounts in the wake of a close election marred by irregularities.