The Supreme Court Joins Trump’s Insidious War on Voting Rights

The high court’s shadow-docket decision isn’t the final word on mail-in ballots, but it reveals the conservative bloc’s comfort with the administration’s voter suppression schemes.

The Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s stay of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to commandeer state vote-by-mail systems in a 6-3 vote on Monday night. Its explanation for the decision began with a lie. “About five months ago, President Trump issued an Executive Order designed to maintain public confidence in federal elections,” the court claimed in an unsigned order.

In reality, Trump has no interest in maintaining public confidence in federal elections. He has spent the last 14 years publicly undermining confidence in election results, even in ones that he won. His executive order was intended to sow discord in and seize control of state election processes ahead of the midterms, where his party is preparing to lose one or both chambers of Congress.

Monday’s order in Trump v. California does not give Trump a full green light to pursue his plans. A separate lower-court injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump remains in effect for now. The Supreme Court’s order also left room for the states to renew their challenge to a key part of the executive order at a later date.

At the same time, the court’s framing of the dispute in Monday’s order inspires little confidence that it will protect state vote-by-mail processes from Trump’s attacks. It gives extraordinary deference to the executive branch while ignoring the systemic threat that Trump’s efforts represent to the midterm elections. That does not bode well for future litigation against the executive order.

“For its part, the court has opted to take a blinders-on approach to evaluating the merits of the government’s arguments about the order’s directives, present impact, and anticipated effects, despite this court’s admonition that courts ‘are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,’” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissenting opinion, quoting from a 2019 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan also dissented separately.

This case springs from the president’s opposition to American democracy. Trump has treated any presidential election result that he dislikes as illegitimate for the last 14 years. Since 2020, he has been obsessed with promoting the phantasmal threat of significant fraud from mail-in ballots, despite uncovering no evidence that it exists or has played a role in any U.S. presidential election. (And despite the fact that he casts his own vote by mail.)

After news outlets called the 2012 election for Barack Obama on Election Night, Trump posted on Twitter that the result was illegitimate. “This election is a total sham and a travesty,” he wrote in a since-deleted post. “We are not a democracy!” Other tweets complained that “more votes equals a loss” and called for “revolution!” Finally, he called on Americans to “march on Washington and stop this travesty,” foreshadowing his own coup attempt eight years later.

In 2016, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by narrowing winning key battleground states to secure a majority of electoral votes. Clinton, however, secured a........

© New Republic