Leah Litman

So Justice Alito referred to the confidence you can have once you turn your ballot over to the Postal Service and whatnot.

Honestly, Justice Kavanaugh sounded like he was more in that camp than in the middle.

So he was throwing out concerns about...

If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late arriving ballots, won't that undermine confidence?

And shouldn't we fashion a rule based on that?

Again, eating up the kind of talking points from the 2020 presidential election.

And then you had Justices Barrett and the chief saying some of that.

But then also saying, well, federal government, RNC, wouldn't your theory also call into question the ability of people to cast early ballots, early in-person voting?

Wouldn't it also call into question why states can even continue to count ballots after Election Day, even if they were received on or before Election Day?

Like, why does it have to be that receipt happens early?

on or before Election Day, but nothing else has to happen then.

That's just nonsensical.

So they seem to be the ones that are going to dictate the outcome in that case.

And I will breathe a sigh of relief if they end up rejecting the federal government and the RNC's theory.

But it is just so scary that we are living in a world where it is possible that the Supreme Court at the end of June is going to announce this decision that could again nullify voting laws and practices just a few months before the midterms in over half of the election and craft a rule that would have disenfranchised almost a million voters in the 2024 election.

I think your interpretation is very generous.

I think what Kavanaugh was doing was a tell me why I'm right.

Tell me why this isn't a concern question.

Because what he asked the lawyer for the RNC was, would there be a problem under the so-called Purcell principle that

if we announced this decision for the upcoming midterms.