Just Politics

[janice shell]

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county.

That is not what the current action is about. Not even close. First of all, what you cite was an appeal of the decision reached by the Florida Supreme Court, not original litigation.

Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do.

And once again, that is not what the current action is about. And here in Pennsylvania, the state legislature DID vote to change the law. Because of COVID. Because it wanted to give people a safe alternative to going to the polls in person.

So your analogy is bullshit.