As election tensions build, experts indicate a minimal likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court intervening in the aftermath of November 5.
Election-related legislation and court restructuring reduce the chances of Supreme Court involvement in the 2024 presidential election, Fox News reported.
Under the 2022 amendments to the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA), the Supreme Court’s role in election disputes has been significantly limited. These changes were primarily aimed at speeding up the litigation process relating to electoral issues and clearly defining the vice president's role during the electoral vote count as solely ministerial.
The updated ECRA also introduced a new legal framework that necessitates that election-related lawsuits first be heard by a three-judge panel at the district court level. This approach ensures that cases are addressed swiftly, with the provision for direct appeals to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis.
Jason Torchinsky, a legal expert, explains the high threshold for Supreme Court involvement, "It's got to be super, super close," emphasizing the need for an election outcome to be extremely narrow to warrant the High Court's intervention.
However, despite the streamlined process, the scope for issues that can be escalated to the Supreme Court under the ECRA is concise and clearly delineated. This stringent scope has led to a variety of legal challenges, including a notable case in Georgia where the timing of county election results certification, amid fraud concerns, has become a contentious issue.
Adding another layer of complexity, the composition of the Supreme Court, heavily consisting of justices appointed during Republican administrations, is perceived to influence the judicial outlook on such cases. Joseph Burns, a partner at a leading law firm, commented on the court's makeup, "In terms of the makeup of the court, there's no question you've got six appointees of Republican judges at this point."
Burns added that these justices are likely to interpret statutes - whether state or federal - faithfully to the letter, reinforcing a conservative approach to legal interpretations. This conservative bent could potentially shape the outcomes of election-related litigation.
Still, the overall sentiment among analysts is one of judicial restraint. John Hardin Young, a legal advisor, noted the justices' reluctance to step into electoral matters unless absolutely compelling circumstances demand it. "I think that there's now a sensitivity among the nine justices not to get involved unless it were absolutely necessary," he said.
Greg Teufel and other experts highlight the introduction of a specific pathway into federal court for certain types of electoral disputes as a result of the recent amendments. "It does kind of create a new route into the federal court for a specific limited set of issues being raised under the Electoral Count Act," Teufel remarked.
He was quick to add, however, that the likelihood of such cases reaching the Supreme Court remains limited due to the narrow scope defined under the ECRA. "There are very limited issues that can be raised under that Act," Teufel further explained, hinting at the high barriers for such litigations to escalate.
Concerns about the broader impacts of these legal provisions are also prevalent. If utilized in controversial ways during the election, the ECRA itself may face significant challenges. "The entirety of the act may come under challenge if it's utilized in a way that impacts the outcome of the election in a way that people view as improper, unfair, or unlawful," warned Teufel.
Despite these legislative changes and judicial thresholds, uncertainties remain as to how future electoral disputes will be handled. Jeff Wice, a professor at New York Law School, emphasized these uncertainties saying, "There are just so many unknowns that we have to see how things play out."
The combination of legislative amendments to the ECRA, the specific legal processes prescribed, and the current composition of the Supreme Court sketch a complex framework for dealing with election disputes post-November.
Ultimately, the practical implications of these legal frameworks in a real-world election scenario will test the resilience and effectiveness of the reforms designed to uphold electoral integrity and the democratic process.
