When the Supreme Court of the United States decided not to call any Election cases for review, one of the three guys with stainless steel as the major component in their spines took the step of publishing this dissent, beginning with the words “Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”.
By a single vote, the SCOTUS denied President Trump his day in court, and Judge Thomas was blunt in calling out the whole electoral system on its failings, time-related, voting scrutiny, and allowance of a fraud-prevalent practice, i.e. Mail-in voting.
As he stated:- “For one thing, as election administrators have long agreed, the risk of fraud is vastly more prevalent for mail-in ballots … The reason is simple: Absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honour system.” As a result, one article concluded that, “voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner.” “Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence,” Thomas reasoned after examining several examples.
He went on to explain:- Filing lawsuits after Election Day “is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladministration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results,” Thomas noted as additional reason to decide these legal issues now. “An incorrect allegation, left to fester without a robust mechanism to test and disprove it, drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election, we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions,” Thomas declared. “Here, we have the opportunity to do so almost two years before the next federal election cycle. Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling.
Justice Alito, in his published ‘Dissent’, also stated:- One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
Americans of a conservative bent, Republican and Democrat alike, have long written off Chief Justice Roberts. In their view; he has long been regarded as ‘soft on everything’: but Kavanaugh and Coney, their lack of action on anything ‘Election-related’; is both puzzling and worrisome!