So far this election season, the Supreme Court has blocked former independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Green Party’s Jill Stein from getting on ballots in New York and Nevada, respectively. The justices also partially sided with Republicans’ bid to enforce Arizona state law requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voting.
We could learn more in the coming days about how the Roberts Court will handle voting litigation ahead of Election Day — and, perhaps, beyond.
After losing his quest to get on New York’s ballot, Kennedy is pressing the justices to get him off the Wisconsin and Michigan ballots. Voting is already underway in those swing states, and the high court could inject chaos into those crucial races if it sides with the former independent candidate, who suspended his campaign and is supporting the Republican, Donald Trump. The states’ responses to Kennedy’s applications are due Monday afternoon, so we could find out soon what the justices will do.
The justices could also step in on appeals from Virginia and Pennsylvania to purge voters and restrict provisional ballots, respectively. Both cases could be significant in their own right and also signal how the justices deal with broader issues of how courts can intervene close to elections and the power of state legislatures.
Even if none of these appeals succeed or wind up determining the election outcome, how the justices go about deciding them could be telling. That includes whether any justices dissent from any rejections or issue accompanying statements about broader principles of law that extend to any post-Election Day litigation.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.
