The Supreme Court’s Election Interference Ruse

The recent decision by the US Supreme Court to put on hold a lower court injunction against part of the Trump administration’s attempt to meddle with mail-in ballots has sparked debate about whether this is just another chapter in the high court’s willingness to intervene in election matters or something more. At its core, the issue is not just about judicial hairsplitting but rather a deliberate attempt by the Supreme Court to obscure the fact that it is once again inserting itself into an election-related controversy.

The court’s decision frames the issue as one of “standing” and “ripeness,” sidestepping the question of whether Trump’s executive order was constitutional in the first place. This technicality effectively obscures the underlying issue, creating a sense of uncertainty and confusion that could have far-reaching consequences for American voters.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion is a scathing rebuke of her colleagues’ decision-making process. She argues that the real issue here isn’t whether or not the Supreme Court punted on the merits but rather how it’s using its own malleable elections doctrine to grease the skids for further intervention in future elections.

The high court’s manipulation of its own doctrine is alarming, and Justice Jackson’s warning that President Trump’s March executive order was “tailor-made to weaponize this case as a means of destabilizing the nation’s vote-by-mail systems through court-assisted procedural maneuvers” highlights the dangers of judicial overreach. The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as a neutral arbiter of the law and instead become a tool for advancing partisan interests.

The irony is that the Supreme Court’s decision does almost nothing to change mail-in voting rules heading into the November midterms, but by intervening in this case, the court is creating uncertainty and confusion. This is not just a matter of technicalities or partisan squabbles; it’s a symptom of a deeper disease that threatens the very foundations of American democracy.

The Supreme Court’s radical shift in the election-law landscape in 2020 laid the groundwork for future election cases. The court distorted principles like the Purcell principle, which was once intended to prevent confusion and administrative problems but is now used as a blunt instrument to block all voting rights protections close to an election, regardless of their impact.

This distortion has had far-reaching consequences, coloring Supreme Court elections cases for years. The court’s willingness to manipulate its own doctrine to favor one party over the other is a stark reminder of the dangers of judicial overreach. The normalization of Trump’s claims about vote rigging is also alarming, and the court itself has bought into this narrative.

The high court’s decision perpetuates the fiction that Trump’s March executive order on mail-in ballots was designed to “maintain public confidence in federal elections.” This is a clear example of how the Supreme Court has abandoned its role as a neutral arbiter of the law. As we head into the November midterms, it’s essential to recognize that the Supreme Court’s actions are not just a matter of technicalities or partisan squabbles but rather symptoms of a deeper disease that threatens the very foundations of American democracy.