The Supreme Court’s Latest Election Plot Twist

Two major election-related cases landed at the Supreme Court on Monday—Republican National Committee v Genser (Pennsylvania) and Beals v Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights. With just 6 days until the November 5th election, these cases highlight the ongoing tension between state and federal authority in election administration.

The Pennsylvania Case In-Depth

In RNC v Genser, Pennsylvania's complex mail-in voting system has come under scrutiny. Voters must place their ballot in a "secrecy envelope," which then goes into a "declaration envelope" that must be signed and dated. When ballot-sorting machines flag a "naked ballot"—one missing its secrecy envelope—voters are notified that they can cast a provisional ballot on Election Day. The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that these provisional ballots must be counted if the original mail-in ballot wasn't counted.¹

The RNC's challenge centers on the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives state legislatures primary authority over federal election rules. They're citing the Supreme Court's 2023 Moore v Harper decision as precedent—a case that fundamentally reshaped our understanding of state authority over federal elections.¹

The Virginia Case Detailed

In Beals v Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Virginia's voter purge program highlights the challenges of maintaining accurate voter rolls. Initiated by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin in August, the program uses DMV data to identify suspected non-citizens, giving flagged voters 14 days to verify citizenship before removal.²

A federal judge halted the program after finding it violated the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day "quiet period" before federal elections (this refers to the period in which states are not allowed to remove the names of ineligible voters from registration lists). Virginia argues this rule doesn't apply to removing non-citizens who were never eligible voters.²

A Light History Lesson

The 2023 Moore v Harper decision provides crucial context for both current cases. The case began when North Carolina voters challenged gerrymandered congressional maps drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature. The state Supreme Court initially ruled the maps unconstitutional, but after its composition changed through elections, it reversed course.³

The US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, rejected the "independent state legislature theory" that would have given state legislatures unchecked power over federal election rules. However, Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion established that state courts "do not have free rein" and must stay within "ordinary bounds of judicial review." This nuanced ruling created the legal framework now being tested in both Pennsylvania and Virginia.³

Connecting the Dots

The evolution of election law through Supreme Court decisions tells a story of increasing federal court involvement in state election administration:

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act established federal standards for voter list maintenance, creating the framework Virginia now argues doesn't apply to non-citizen purges. The 2000 Bush v Gore decision marked a watershed moment, with the Supreme Court directly intervening in state election procedures. Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurrence in that case laid early groundwork for questioning state court authority over election law.⁴

The 2013 Shelby County v Holder decision significantly weakened federal oversight of state election changes by invalidating key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This opened the door for states to implement more aggressive voter roll maintenance programs like Virginia's.⁵

During the 2020 election, the Supreme Court handled numerous emergency election cases related to pandemic voting measures, establishing precedent about late-breaking election rule changes. The Court deferred to the "Purcell principle,” the 2006 idea that courts should avoid changing election rules close to an election because doing so could confuse voters. So, while states must observe the ‘quiet period’ that limits voter roll changes before elections, courts must follow the Purcell principle. Together, these guardrails aim to prevent confusion and ensure stability in the weeks leading up to an election.⁶

Health Care Policy Implications

These cases could determine control of Congress and the presidency at a crucial moment for health care policy. The Medicare drug price negotiation program, which Vice President Kamala Harris helped pass with her tie-breaking Senate vote, depends on continued administrative support for implementation. The Affordable Care Act faces a critical juncture with premium subsidies expiring in 2025, while Medicaid expansion and work requirements remain contentious state-level issues.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court must balance several competing interests: the need for quick decisions given the imminent election, the importance of clear guidance for election officials, and the establishment of workable precedents for future election disputes. Their rulings could affect not just this election but shape the relationship between state and federal courts in election administration for years to come.

The intersection of election administration and health care policy reminds us that procedural court decisions can have far-reaching effects on substantive policy outcomes. As we await the Court's decisions in both RNC v Genser and Beals v Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the stakes for both democratic processes and health care policy continue to rise.

Remember, regardless of your political affiliation, staying informed about health care policy is crucial. Let’s keep pushing for the substantive policy discussions we deserve.

Happy voting!

Join me on Wednesdays as I highlight key court decisions, review notable health policies, and analyze what’s behind the bill in health care.

References

1. Howe A. Republicans ask Supreme Court to block decision to count Pennsylvania provisional ballots. SCOTUS blog. October 28, 2024. Accessed October 29, 2024. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/republicans-ask-supreme-court-to-block-decision-to-count-pennsylvania-provisional-ballots/

2. Howe A. Virginia asks Supreme Court to allow voter rolls purge before election. October 28, 2024. Accessed October 29, 2024. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/virginia-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-voter-rolls-purge-before-election/

3. Moore v Harper, 600 US 1 (2023).

4. Bush v Gore, 531 US 98 (2000).

5. Shelby County v Holder, 570 US 529 (2013).

6. The Purcell principle: a presumption against last-minute changes to election procedures. SCOTUS blog. Accessed October 29, 2024. https://www.scotusblog.com/election-law-explainers/the-purcell-principle-a-presumption-against-last-minute-changes-to-election-procedures/