This year’s important US presidential election is taking place in the context of the fog created by President Donald Trump over the peaceful transfer of power. The record number of postal votes, the mass polarization of voters, or the readiness of the US media to prepare Supreme Court judges has increased fears that the fight for a new president will go to court. The idea is that even if the result is the same or only a ‘battlefield’ there is a difference in hair width, both sides can go to court. And both sides have completed its preparations. They have hundreds of lawyers who are ready to stand by each other.
On October 29, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump camp in favor of granting additional time to vote, even after voting in the two major states Carolina North Carolina and Pennsylvania. This is a big setback for Trump’s camp. In the United States, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals set a deadline to receive the ballot on October 29 in Minnesota and before October 28 in Pennsylvania, until the day after the election (November 3).
Trump has already said that he cannot accept the verdict if he loses the election. If necessary, you can go to the High Court. They have also prepared for this. If the result is delayed, they have indicated making ethnic accusations. In such a context, the court’s decision to extend the deadline for receiving postal ballots has increased the risk of a legal battle after the election.
Experts say this could happen, particularly in Pennsylvania and another important state, Minnesota, if election results are close. Trump and his Republican camp have been objecting to postal or postal ballots accepted after 3 November. The Republican and Democrat camps have already resorted to court in one case after another. The idea is that such a dispute over the Pennsylvania vote could escalate. Polls indicate Democrats will lead in early state elections. However, there are apprehensions that Trump could have declared himself the winner if he was ahead of the electorate on election day.
Jessica Levinson, an electoral law teacher at a law school in Los Angeles, told Reuters, “If the results are the same in Pennsylvania and Florida or the difference is very small, we could be in a bitter legal battle.”
President Trump has already indicated that a legal battle over the ballot will be fought in court. He has already arranged to keep the Supreme Court in his favor by increasing the number of conservative judges.
Democrats dominated the Houston area of Texas in this pre-election. Due to the Corona epidemic, voting has taken place in these areas in ‘drive throw’ polling stations. After receiving such votes, the Republican Party appealed to the court not to count 1 lakh 26 thousand votes. A Texas federal judge rejected the Republican Party’s appeal on Monday. The court’s decision went against Republican efforts. The state of Nevada had to intervene in another similar case yesterday. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Clark County, Nevada, objecting to the initial counting. The Republican Party objected to the software identifying voter signatures. The Nevada judge also rejected the Republican Party’s appeal.
At least 12 hours before the voting starts, the law and order situation has heated up. Even at the last minute, Donald Trump and Joe Biden have stated their opposition to the election results. Speaking from the Trump campaign camp, Biden said the camp wants to question the vote. According to Biden’s campaign camp, Donald Trump by no means can declare his victory on Tuesday night before all votes are counted. Justin Clarke, President Trump’s deputy campaign manager, claims Democrats are now scared. Because, in the early voting in the swing states, Joe Biden did not get enough votes to stay ahead. Justin Clarke says Democrats know that President Trump will be ahead in the physical vote.
The US Supreme Court has so far taken electoral cases lightly – but that may change after November 3. The pre-election verdict has been largely upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the details and nuances of these decisions can be considered as the basis for a more conservative attitude in the next course of election cases. Judges have gone through a complex process in pre-election cases. For the most part, his focus was on extending the deadline to receive postal ballots. Eventually he increased the vote count in Pennsylvania and North Carolina but declined in Wisconsin. In both states, postal votes received after the vote will be counted, although a court in each of the two states said it should not be counted.
Republicans say the ballots will be disputed if the election is competitive. Most pre-election decisions are not complete – these are examples of Supreme Court decisions. These absolute decisions will depend on clear and direct elections, but they will not reach a clear place in law and constitutional issues. In Pennsylvania, for example, the court ruled in favor of the extension, but did not decide on whether the extension was valid. Disputes over Pennsylvania results may be reviewed.
Legal adviser Bob Bauer of Biden’s campaign camp said: “The court has shown that the core issue of voter dependency is very sensitive.”
However, there is good reason to think that the court may take a strict line in the post-election case.
Newly appointed Justice Amy Connie Barrett did not run in any of the pre-election cases. But when the new debate reaches court, it will likely strengthen the coalition of conservative judges. In each case, conservative judges have spoken out against the expansion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuels Alito and Neil Gorsuch all tried in Pennsylvania and North Carolina to block the voting count. In the Wisconsin case, Richard Brapp Kavanugh criticized the postal vote in a lengthy letter. So that there is a strong indication that if there is a challenge after the election, all three can react negatively.
Sources: CNN, Reuters, Ixios, NBC