WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday mainly reinstated a South Carolina law that requires absentee ballots to be accompanied by a witness’s signature. Lower courts blocked the law, saying it interfered with voting rights during a pandemic.
The Supreme Court made an exception for votes cast before acting and received by election officials within two days of their order.
The most conservative members of the court, Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, said they would have reinstated the requirement for all ballots.
Only one member of the court gave the reasons. In a concurring opinion, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that the majority approach was justified because state electoral laws should not be questioned by federal judges and because the Supreme Court disapproves of changes in electoral procedures made around election day.
Several voters and Democratic groups have filed a lawsuit to block the demand for witnesses. In granting a preliminary injunction, Judge J. Michelle Childs of the Federal District Court in Columbia, SC, said the requirement had no useful purpose, rejecting state officials’ argument that witnesses could assist in potential electoral fraud investigations. .
“The fact that the witness requirement can provide a clue to investigating absent fraud is undermined by an absolute shortage of absent fraud,” wrote Judge Childs.
A panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit initially blocked Judge Childs’ injunction, but the full court of appeals reinstated it.
State officials and the Republican Party of South Carolina have asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying that the witness requirement imposed a minimal burden.
“Watching someone sign something takes no more than 60 seconds,” said the briefing, “and witnesses can be family, friends, co-workers, congregants, teachers, waiters, bartenders, gym-goers, neighbors, grocers and more. “
The brief added that the witness requirement helped prevent fraud. “The fact that South Carolina does not have massive electoral fraud is a good thing and shows that the state’s electoral rules are working; it cannot be a reason to suspend these same requirements, ”said the letter.
The decision continued what has been a series of Supreme Court decisions largely relying on arguments pushed by Republicans to restrict voting rights. But the court recently split its decisions into two similar cases about absentee votes.
In July, the Supreme Court reinstated a similar law in Alabama, by 5 votes to 4. But it rejected a request from Republicans in Rhode Island in August to revive that state’s requirement that voters using postal ballots fill them in the presence of two witnesses or a notary, because of the dissidents of Judges Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.
There were important differences between the Alabama and Rhode Island cases, the court explained at the time in an unsigned order. In Alabama, state officials tried to reinstate the law. In Rhode Island, officials agreed to a consent decree suspending the witness requirement.
“Here, state election officials support the contested decree,” said the Rhode Island order, “and no state official has expressed opposition.”
The order added that Rhode Island’s latest election was conducted without the requirement for witnesses, meaning that instituting a change later could confuse voters.
State officials in the South Carolina case said it was “virtually identical” to Alabama. But the challengers responded that the South Carolina primary, unlike Alabama, was conducted without a witness requirement.
More than 8,000 people have already voted by mail in the South Carolina general elections, presumably under the impression that the witness requirement has been lifted. “Many of these voters face some disenfranchisement because they are not to blame for that,” said the challengers’ statement.
State officials, in response, said the number of these ballots was unknown and rated the possibility “unfortunate”.
“If South Carolina finds that some ballots are unsigned by a witness and were presented while the district court injunction was in effect, the state will simply have a decision to make about what to do with those ballots,” wrote the authorities. . “Whatever you decide, the possibility that some people may have voted without meeting the witness requirement cannot be a reason to allow all vote without meeting the witness requirement. “