Supreme Court Upholds Mail-in Voting Provisions Ahead of Election

Why it matters locally: While the Supreme Court's decisions directly concern Pennsylvania and North Carolina, the upholding of expanded mail-in voting provisions could reinforce similar voting methods utilized in Oregon, which has a long history of conducting elections primarily by mail. This could provide a degree of stability for Oregon's election procedures against potential future challenges.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court allowed expanded mail-in voting provisions to stand in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, decisions made less than two months before Election Day. The court's action effectively denied requests to shorten the period for receiving absentee ballots in those states. President Donald Trump reacted to the decisions by criticizing the Supreme Court. "I think it's a terrible thing that they've done," Trump stated, referring to the court's action. The specific cases involved a challenge to Pennsylvania's extended deadline for receiving mail-in ballots and North Carolina's allowance for ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to nine days later. The Supreme Court's decisions meant these extensions remained in effect. Amy Howe, a Supreme Court analyst and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, discussed the court's stance. Howe explained that the justices did not provide reasoning for their decisions in these orders. She noted that the court often does not offer explanations for these types of emergency applications. Regarding the broader implications, Howe highlighted that the Supreme Court has generally shown reluctance to intervene in state election procedures close to an election. "What you've seen is the Supreme Court has been very reluctant to step into these cases, especially so close to the election," Howe said.