The case was originally brought up by a pair of electoral college for President Donald Trump in Minnesota, James Carson and Eric Lucero. Separately, the Trump campaign and the Republican legislative candidates petition to the state Supreme Court to separate the incoming ballots after the close of the early polls.
Trump’s campaign had targeted Minnesota earlier in the cycle as a potential toppling target after losing it just 1.5 percentage points in 2016, but it appeared to fall off the battlefield map in the fall . However, the state is witnessing a late run for the election, with both Trump and Joe Biden hosting events in Minnesota on Friday.
Judges Bobby Shepherd, an appointment of President George W. Bush, and L. Steven Grasz, a Trump-appointed person, make up the majority. Judge Jane Kelly, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, disagreed.
There is an additional layer of complexity in the case in addition to separating certain types of votes: The court proposes that votes in the presidential election can be removed only if the consent decree is void. The court order states that the ballots should be segregated “in a way that allows their respective votes for the presidential electors … to be removed from the total number of votes in case the final order is given. issued by an authorized court determined that the votes were either invalid or illegally counted. ”
Simon, a Democrat, said at a news conference Thursday night that his office is still considering appeal options. Simon is extremely critical of the verdict, both in its content and timing.
“The US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has made an unnecessary disturbance,”; Simon said. “The nature of decision is extremely troublesome. But so is the timing. This could have been decided many months ago. “
Simon repeatedly emphasized that voters should no longer return their ballots by mail, and that they need to resubmit their ballots by hand or vote in person.
Shepherd and Grasz noted in their ruling that their decision could cause confusion among voters, with only a few days left until Election Day.
“The consequences of this order have not disappeared on our side. We acknowledge and understand concerns about voter confusion, electoral governance issues and public confidence in the election live up to the Purcell principle, “citing a doctrine that courts federal judgment in general should not break electoral rules is close to Election Day.
“With that said, we conclude that the challenges that will stem from this ruling are more appropriate for a post-election scenario in which ballots sent by mail, received after the statutory deadline, alternate with ballots received on time or invalidated without prior warning, ”they continued.
This was the second case in days when federal courts assumed that late ballots could still be thrown, even likely after Election Day.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court refused to expedite a Republican challenge to Pennsylvania’s extended deadline but left the option of ruling on the case after Election Day.
In a statement accompanied by a denial in Pennsylvania, Justice Samuel Alito noted in the Pennsylvania case that the Commonwealth Minister had previously issued instructions to local election officials on Wednesday to separate. ballots received after the end of the polls but before the November 6 deadline, cracking. The door to a potential post-election decision.
Alito’s statement hinted that he believed those ballots could still be thrown, even if the ruling was made after Election Day. “Refusing the Court’s offer of promotion is not denying the Court’s request for a separate order of votes received after election day so that if the final decision of the State Supreme Court is overturned, there will be a targeted remedy, ”he wrote.