SCOTUS wins for November: no expansion of mail-in voting, ID required in AL


The Supreme Court handed down two briefunsigned orders on Friday concerning what restrictions states may place on absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic.

They kicked the can down the road, but the orders are good for those who want to see their vote protected.

One prevents Alabamans from voting by mail without ID, and the other prevents absentee voting in Texas for everyone under 65 during the pandemic. The decisions aren’t final but they delayed them long enough.

The Alabama case

Basically, the Supreme Court stopped an Obama judge from ending voter ID and other basic security measures for voting in Alabama.

The Alabama case is Merrill v. People First of Alabama. Alabama law allows anyone to cast an absentee ballot during the pandemic, but it also imposes certain restrictions on those voters. Among other things, absentee voters must provide a copy of their photo ID, and their ballot must be signed by either two witnesses or one notary public.

A lower court blocked these restrictions. But the Supreme Court stayed that lower court decision — ensuring that, at the very least, the restrictions will be in place for Alabama’s July 14 runoff primary election.


Democrats are upset. They always want people to vote without proof. Ask yourself why. Is it really prejudice? Come on.

The Texas case

Basically, the Supreme Court rejected the attempt to expand mail-in voting in Texas.

The Texas case, Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, delays a decision on giving absentee ballots to people under 65 for the coronavirus. It probably won’t be heard until after the November election.

Democrats are upset and some believe it’s because absentee voting is the easiest way to corrupt the vote.

What Democrats say is younger voters will likely have to risk infection at an in-person polling site if they wish to cast a ballot.

The Court’s order in Texas Democratic Party is subtle, but it most likely means that Democrats won’t get to expand mail-in voting, at least during the November election.

Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear their case on an expedited basis. On Friday, the Supreme Court denied that request. As a practical matter, writes SCOTUSBlog’s Amy Howe, this refusal to expedite the Texas Democratic Party case “all but eliminated the prospect that the justices will weigh in on the merits of that dispute before the 2020 election in November.”


Democrats claim not letting everyone vote absentee is age discrimination. With this order, even if the Supreme Court ultimately does decide that Texas’s so-called age discrimination violates the 26th Amendment, that decision will almost certainly come too late to benefit anyone in November.

Democrats want to make it extremely easy to vote, allegedly because of the pandemic, while encouraging riots and protests of youth mingling close together. The absentee voting system would be equivalent to a mail-in balloting system and the potential for illegal voting is immense.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments