On Monday, the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court rejected a push to expand Wisconsin's ballot processing deadline so that votes received after Election Day will count, as long as they are postmarked by the proper day.
But according to Slate legal journalist Mark Joseph Stern, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled he would have been willing to go even further — and embrace a legal theory saying that not only should federal judges be blocked from expansion of voting rights ahead of elections, but state judges should be as well.
Such a theory, Stern noted, was suggested by right-wing former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore ruling that decided the 2000 presidential election — but not even all the other conservative justices agreed with it.
Holy shit—Brett Kavanaugh just endorsed Rehnquist's concurrence in Bush v. Gore, which was too extreme for Kennedy… https://t.co/OgAPkVjSKD— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1603755875.0
The headline news here is that, by a 5–3 vote, SCOTUS made it harder for Wisconsin residents to cast a ballot and m… https://t.co/UDb47SDjJe— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1603756165.0
This is VERY BAD NEWS for voting rights. Appallingly bad. Brett Kavanaugh used a footnote to throw his support behi… https://t.co/0aY483V8t9— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1603756292.0
How radical is Kavanaugh's theory? John Roberts felt compelled to reject it in a separate opinion, correctly noting… https://t.co/sSexheOvi9— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1603756416.0
Gorsuch also endorsed Rehnquist's position in Bush v. Gore. And Kavanaugh joined his opinion. Both want to prevent… https://t.co/DY5AelWLhQ— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1603756619.0
As fate would have it, I wrote about this exact issue in an article that published minutes before SCOTUS handed dow… https://t.co/76utXPQFgs— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1603756932.0