source:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6826732-19A1016.html
I fail to see the outrage after reading the court's script. If anything this seems like this dude is blatantly oversimplifying what the courts actually talked about in order to manufacture partisan outrage at Wisconsin Reps.
I don't think its disenfranchisement considering the original ruling by the district court was to extend the deadline for vote submission, and SCOTUS stopped that to go back to the original schedule, unless you'd argue the original schedule was also disenfranchising. As Gato said people have known about how to submit absentee voting for months if not years, it is not some new phenomenon that April 7th is the date of Wisconsin voting and that is subsequently the date of submission. In addition people have known about the Coronavirus since at the very least mid February if not earlier depending on how informed one was. Simply because people chose to last minute sign up for absentee vote and they don't get their ballot due to congestion does not mean its disenfranchising as they had every capability to sign up earlier and still have the capability to protect themselves and go in person.
If one reads the excerpt from the court one also finds that "importantly, in their preliminary injunction the plaintiffs did not ask that the District Court allow ballots mailed and postmarked after the election date, April 7th, to be counted."
The SCOTUS remarks upon cases presented unto them and does not add as an aside additional judgements, thus the only thing they actually commented on or upheld was that the state's law of ballots would be counted on April 7th, election day, rather than a day after. This judgement is not something novel, it is a judgement they have upheld many times previously. "Our point is not that the point is necessarily forfeit but that the plaintiffs themselves did not see the need to ask for such relief...This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should not ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election" (
Purcell v. Gonzalez; Frank v. Walker; Veasey v. Perry).
I'm with gato on this one, this reads like a fundamental misunderstanding of what SCOTUS actually does combined with a misunderstanding of what disenfranchisement is, as no one's voting rights were taken away. If you failed to secure an absentee ballot in time then bully for you, it is the equivalent of shopping for presents on Christmas Eve and then wondering why you don't get the packages on time / everything is out of stock. I also think its hyperbolic to claim its a not so subtle way to disenfranchise opposition voters, or to claim that they "hate democracy."
