- On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked itself in a decision that would have cut short the amount of time Pennsylvania‘s election officials had to receive mail-in ballots.
- Because of the 4-to-4 tie, a lower court decision granting an extended deadline stayed.
- Several states have also seen major rulings regarding voting recently. In Michigan on Friday, an appeals court judge ruled in favor of prohibiting ballots from being turned in past 8 p.m. on Election Day in the state.
- In Texas, an appeals court judge ruled Monday that state election officials can reject mail-in ballots over mismatched signatures without giving voters a chance to appeal.
SCOTUS Denies Pennsylvania GOP Request Limiting Mail-in Voting
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request from Pennsylvania’s Republican Party on Monday that would have shortened the deadline for state election officials to receive absentee ballots.
The GOP request was an appeal to a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month. In that decision, the state Supreme Court sided with Democrats, granting them an extension to the deadline for which mail-in ballots could be received. That extension moved the cut off date from 8 p.m. on Election Day (Nov. 3) to 5 p.m. on the following Friday (Nov. 6).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court cited several reasons, including potential mail delays and the fact that state law allows mail ballots to be cast on Election Day. To be clear, this extension only applies to the date election officials in the state can still accept mail-in ballots; those ballots must still be postmarked by Election Day.
Following that decision, Pennsylvania’s GOP accused the state Supreme Court of exceeding its powers and unconstitutionally changing election law. From there, they appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, who ultimately agreed to hear it.
On Monday, SCOTUS was split: Chief Justice John Roberts sided with liberal judges Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer in denying the request. Meanwhile, conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch all dissented.
With the notable exception of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died last month, that meant the court was deadlocked 4-4; however, when the court is deadlocked, the decision from the lower court remains in place.
Immediately, Democrats cheered the news, especially since Pennsylvania is a key swing state and this extension could decide the fate of thousands of ballots. Notably, in 2016, President Donald Trump won the state by 44,000 votes.
On the other hand, Republicans expressed disappointment over the news, and many of them emphasized the fact that this was a deadlocked decision.
Pennsylvania GOP Chair Lawrence Tabas said Monday’s decision “only underscores the importance of having a full Supreme Court as soon as possible.”
To that point, if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she could be placed on the bench as early as the week before the election, meaning that if more election-related cases come before SCOTUS, as they very likely will, she could end up being the deciding vote.
Michigan Court Restricts Mail-in Voting Return Deadline
While SCOTUS’ Pennsylvania decision may be the most high-profile mail-in voting decision seen by a court in recent days, by no means is it the only one.
In fact, on Friday, an appeals court in Michigan handed down a decision opposite to what SCOTUS ruled in Pennsylvania. There, a judge ruled that ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day or they won’t be counted.
Notably, that decision overturned a lower court decision which had stated that ballots postmarked by Nov. 2 could be counted if they were received within 14 days of Election Day.
Texas Can Reject Ballots Because of Signatures, Without Allowing Voters to Appeal
An appeals court judge in Texas has also ruled that state election officials can reject mail-in ballots over mismatched signatures, all without giving voters a chance to appeal if their ballot is rejected.
Essentially, if election officials decide that a signature on a ballot can’t be verified, they’re allowed to reject that ballot without notifying voters until after the election.
Like Michigan, the appeals court overturned a lower court ruling. In this case, that ruling would have required the Texas secretary of state to either advise election officials not to reject mail-in ballots because of signatures or require them to set up a notification system that gave voters a chance to challenge rejections.
Appeals Court Judge Jerry E. Smith, who handed down Monday’s decision, said requiring either process would compromise mail-in ballot integrity.
“Texas’s strong interest in safeguarding the integrity of its elections from voter fraud far outweighs any burden the state’s voting procedures place on the right to vote,” Smith added.
The League of Women Voters of Texas, who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit that brought about the original decision, called Smith’s decision “deeply disappointing because it allows the State to shirk its responsibility to ensure that each vote is counted during an incredibly important election while a deadly global pandemic rages on.”
See what others are saying: (Axios) (NPR) (Texas Tribune)
NY Attorney General Says Investigation of Trump Business Found “Significant Evidence” of Fraud
The state attorney general’s office accused the former president and his family business of falsely inflating the value of assets and personal worth to lenders, the IRS, and insurance brokers.
New York Attorney General’s Filing
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced late Tuesday she had “significant evidence” that former President Donald Trump and the Trump Organization “falsely and fraudulently” misrepresented the value of assets “to financial institutions for economic benefit.”
The allegations mark the first time James has made specific accusations against Trump and his business. They come as part of a nearly 160-page filing asking a judge to order the former president — along with Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. — to comply with subpoenas for the investigation after the family sued James to block her from questioning them.
The filing claims that Trump and the company inflated the value of six properties, including several golf courses and Trump’s own penthouse in Trump Tower, on financial statements to obtain favorable loans, tax deductions, and insurance coverage.
The document adds that many of the financial statements were “generally inflated as part of a pattern to suggest that Mr. Trump’s net worth was higher than it otherwise would have appeared.”
James outlined several specific examples, such as a financial statement where the value of Trump’s Seven Springs estate in Westchester was boosted because it listed seven mansions on the property worth $61 million that did not actually exist.
That resulted in Trump receiving millions of dollars in tax deductions on that property, as well as another in Los Angeles.
In another notable instance, the attorney general’s office said that the $327 million value of Trump’s penthouse in Trump Tower was calculated off a financial statement that falsely reported his home was nearly triple its actual size.
While the statement claimed the apartment was 30,000 square feet, Trump had signed documents stating it was actually 10,996 square feet.
Alleged Direct Involvement
The allegation regarding the apartment is especially significant because it directly ties Trump himself to the accusations of financial wrongdoing. It is also not the only instance where Trump was implicated.
The filing additionally asserts that Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg — who was indicted last summer on multiple criminal charges relating to the business’ tax dealings — implied the former president was involved in finalizing the false valuations.
According to the documents, Weisselberg “testified that it was ‘certainly possible’ Mr. Trump discussed valuations with him and that it was ‘certainly possible’ Mr. Trump reviewed the Statement of Financial Condition for a particular year before it was finalized.”
Another top Trump Organization executive also testified that he was under the impression Trump reviewed the statements before they were finalized.
While the filing provides less direct links to Trump’s children, it does detail their involvement. Specifically, it alleges that Ivanka Trump rented an apartment at Trump Park Avenue and was given an option to buy it for $8.5 million, despite the fact that the property was valued at $25 million.
It also connected Donald Trump Jr. to some of the properties flagged by claiming investigators found evidence he “was consulted” on the Statements of Financial Condition.
Citing these connections, James argued in a series of tweets Tuesday that it is necessary for her inquiry to question Trump and his two children on their alleged involvement.
“We are taking legal action to force Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump to comply with our investigation into the Trump Organization’s financial dealings,” she wrote. “No one in this country can pick and choose if and how the law applies to them.”
The former president has not yet addressed the matter, but a Trump Organization attorney representing Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump responded by arguing the subpoenas violate the constitutional rights of the family and that the filing “never addresses the fundamental contentions of our motion to quash or stay the subpoenas.”
In a statement Wednesday, the Trump Organization denied James’ allegations as “baseless” and accused her of trying to “mislead the public yet again.”
As far as what happens next, James’ office has said it “has not yet reached a final decision regarding whether this evidence merits legal action.”
Because James’s investigation is civil, she can sue Trump, his company, and his children, but she cannot file criminal charges. However, her probe is running parallel to a criminal investigation into the same conduct led by the Manhattan district attorney, who does have that power.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (The Wall Street Journal)
Judges Uphold North Carolina’s Congressional Map in Major GOP Win
The judges agreed that the congressional map was “a result of intentional, pro-Republican partisan redistricting” but said they did not have the power to intervene in legislative matters.
New Maps Upheld
A three-judge panel in North Carolina upheld the state’s new congressional and legislative maps on Tuesday, deciding it did not have the power to respond to arguments that Republicans had illegally gerrymandered it to benefit them.
Voting rights groups and Democrats sued over the new maps, which were drawn by the state’s Republican legislature following the 2020 census.
The maps left Democrats with just three of North Carolina’s 14 congressional seats in a battleground state that is more evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Previously, Democrats held five of the 13 districts the state had before the last census, during which North Carolina was allocated an additional seat.
The challengers argued that the blatantly partisan maps had been drawn in a way that went against longstanding rules, violated the state’s Constitution, and intentionally disenfranchised Black voters.
In their unanimous ruling, the panel — composed of one Democrat and two Republicans — agreed that both the legislative and congressional maps were “a result of intentional, pro-Republican partisan redistricting.”
The judges added that they had “disdain for having to deal with issues that potentially lead to results incompatible with democratic principles and subject our state to ridicule.”
Despite their beliefs, the panel said they did not have a legal basis for intervening in political matters and constraining the legislature. They additionally ruled that the challengers did not prove their claims that the maps were discriminatory based on race.
Notably, the judges also stated that partisan gerrymandering does not actually violate the state’s Constitution.
The Path Ahead
While the decision marks a setback to the plaintiffs, the groups have already said they will appeal the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The state’s highest court has a slim Democratic majority and has already signaled they may be open to tossing the map.
There are also past precedents for voting maps to be thrown out in North Carolina. The state has an extensive history of legal battles over gerrymandering, and Republican leaders have been forced to redraw maps twice in recent years.
A forthcoming decision is highly anticipated, as North Carolina’s congressional map could play a major role in the control of the House in the 2022 midterm elections if they are as close as expected.
See what others are saying: (Politico) (The New York Times) (The Wall Street Journal)
Biden Administration Says Private Insurers Will Have to Cover 8 At-Home Tests a Month
The policy will apply to all the nearly 150 million Americans who have private insurance.
New At-Home Testing Policy
The Biden administration announced Monday that private health insurers will now be required to pay for up to eight at-home rapid tests per plan member each month.
Under the new policy, starting Saturday, private insurance holders will be able to purchase any at-home test approved by the FDA at a pharmacy or online. They will either not be asked to pay any upfront costs or be reimbursed for their purchase through their provider.
The move is expected to significantly expand access to rapid tests that other countries have been distributing to their citizens free of charge for months.
According to reports, nearly 150 million Americans — about 45% of the population — have private insurance.
Each dependent enrolled on the primary insurance holder’s account is counted as a member. That means a family of four enrolled on a single plan would be eligible for 32 free at-home rapid tests a month.
All tests may not be fully covered depending on where they are purchased.
In order to help offset costs, the Biden administration is incentivizing insurance providers to establish a network of “preferred” pharmacies and stores where people in the plan can get tests without paying out of pocket.
As a result, health plans that do create those networks will only be required to reimburse up to $12 per test if they are purchased out of that network, meaning people could be on the hook for the rest of the cost.
If an insurer does not set up a preferred network, they will have to cover all at-home tests in full regardless of the place of purchase.
During a briefing Monday, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said tests should be “out the door in the coming weeks.”
“The contracts [for testing companies] are structured in a way to require that significant amounts are delivered on an aggressive timeline, the first of which should be arriving early next week,” she added.