All 2020 election disputes over absentee ballot deadlines have amazing consequences
One sign on the outskirts of Bloomington, Minnesota: There is a sign warning voters about a recent federal court ruling on the deadline for absentee ballots. Stephen Maturen / Getty Images One of the most fiercely contested voting policy issues in the 2020 elections was the deadline for absentee ballots, both in court and in politics. Once in the election, the policy of the majority of states was that ballots must be received by the night of the election to be valid. Proceedings seeking extension of these deadlines have been filed nationwide for two reasons. First, because of the pandemic, absentee ballots will skyrocket in the fall elections. Second, there were concerns about the capabilities and integrity of the United States Postal Service, especially after President Trump appointed a major Republican donor as the new postmaster. This issue produced the Supreme Court’s most controversial decision during the general election and prohibited federal courts from extending the voting deadline for state election law. With the data available, post-election audits provide an outlook on what the actual impact of these deadlines will be. Perhaps surprisingly, very few votes were too late to take effect, regardless of which state the deadline was used in and how much the deadline was back and forth in the months before the election. .. That number was far from the number of votes that could change the outcome of an important race. Wisconsin Deadline Changes Wisconsin and Minnesota are two important states that have been the venue for two major court debates over these issues. In both cases, the absentee ballot deadline continues to change, so voters can be expected to be the most confused about the absentee ballot deadline. In Wisconsin, state law required absentee ballots to be returned by the night of the election. The federal district court has ordered the deadline to be extended by six days. However, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3 to block the district court order and demand that the state’s election law deadlines be respected. Judge Elena Kagan of the Supreme Court challenged the absentee ballot case from Wisconsin and warned that tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens were not negligent. Their own “will be deprived of their rights by a court ruling. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images Judge Elena Kagan, who writes for three opponents, says that as a result of a ruling that the majority is normal, as many as 100,000 voters have the right to vote without their own negligence. Called for the district court’s prediction of losing. -I had to comply with the deadline of the law. Commentators called this a “disastrous decision,” saying that voters in this important state were “likely to be deprived of the rights of tens of thousands.” Post-election audits now provide a perspective on this controversy that has severely divided the court. Ultimately, in Wisconsin, only 1,045 absentee votes were rejected because they missed the election night deadline. That’s 0.05% of the 1,969,274 valid absentee votes, or 0.03% of Wisconsin’s total votes. Expressing this in partisan terms and assuming that Biden won about 70% of the national absentee ballot, if these late-arriving votes were valid, he would have an additional 418 votes in the winning margin. Will be added. Changing Deadlines in Minnesota The dispute over voting deadlines in Minnesota was even more complicated. If voters were confused about these deadlines somewhere and as a result many votes were too late, it might have been expected to be here. State law required that a valid ballot be returned by the night of the election, but as a result of a proceeding against that deadline, the Secretary of State received the ballot within seven days in early August. I agreed that it would be valid if But just five days before the election, a federal court withdrew a rug from under Minnesota voters. On October 29, the Secretary of State of Minnesota was ruled in violation of the Federal Constitution and not authorized to extend the deadline. Therefore, the original election night deadline was re-validated at the very end. Still, of the 1,929,945 absentees (0.04%), only 802 votes were rejected because it was too late. In both Wisconsin and Minnesota, the number of ballots arrived was negligible, despite the fact that the plaintiffs in the right to vote lost the battle near the election day and the deadlines were shifted back and forth. Where the deadline didn’t change What happened in states that had a consistent policy of having to return ballots by the night of the election during the election preparation period? In a fierce battle state, Michigan provides an example. Only 3,328 votes arrived after the election day, too late to count. This was 0.09% of the total votes cast there. Finally, Pennsylvania and North Carolina were two states in which the proceedings succeeded in overturning the state’s election law and making a decision to postpone the deadline for receiving ballots. It was 3 days in Pennsylvania and 6 days in North Carolina. These decisions have sparked fierce political fires in some areas, especially with regard to Pennsylvania. The three-day extension by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was the main justification offered on January 6 for some Republican senators and representatives to oppose counting the votes of the state’s electoral college. .. How many voters have taken advantage of these extended deadlines? In North Carolina, the state’s Election Commission provided me with 2,484 votes in the additional six days after the election date added by the Judiciary Consent Decision. This is 0.04% of the total number of valid votes cast in the state. In Pennsylvania, of the 2,637,065 valid absentee votes, about 10,000 came in during the extended deadline. This is 0.14% of the total votes cast there. These 10,000 votes were not included in the total number of certified votes in the state, but Biden could have added about 5,000 votes to the winning margin, given that he had won about 75% of the state’s absentee ballots. There is sex. Of course, these are not the number of votes that would have been delayed if the court refused to extend the deadline in these two states. They show the maximum number of arrivals after the election day when voters had all the right to return ballots this late. Still, their numbers are far less than the 100,000 predicted in Wisconsin. However, if the statutory deadlines were met in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, the number of absentees from similar swing states, such as Michigan, where the statutory deadlines were fixed and 0.09% of votes were maintained, would vary significantly. There is no reason to think. I arrived too late. Very few absentee votes were held nationwide after the statutory deadline. AFP very enthusiastic voters via George Frey, Kena Betanker, Jason Redmond, Jeff Kowalski / Getty Images Absentee ballots take place after statutory deadline despite surges in absentee ballots in almost every state I was voted. What explains it? Voter turnout showed that voters were very enthusiastic. They were particularly attuned to the risk of email delays in seeing this issue occur on the primary. Throughout the weeks before the election, voters consistently returned absentee votes at a higher rate than in previous elections. The Biden campaign and the state’s Democratic communications efforts, in which voters cast most of these absentee votes, delivered a message about the deadlines for these states. Election authorities have done a good job of communicating these deadlines to voters. In some states, dropboxes that allow absentee votes to be returned without mail may have helped minimize the number of late-arriving votes, but there is no empirical analysis of that. For highly mobilized voters, it turned out that a large number of votes were not too late, regardless of the specific vote return deadline and whether they shifted to the later hours of the day. This is a tribute to voters, election managers, grassroots groups, and campaigns. This article has been republished by The Conversation, a non-profit news site aimed at sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by Richard Pildes of New York University. Read more: Why there is so much legal uncertainty in resolving the controversial presidential election James Baker’s stunning legal strategy has defeated George W. Bush-unlike Rudy Giuliani’s series of losses Richard Pyrdes does not work, consult, own shares, or receive funds. It is a company or organization that benefits from this article and does not disclose relevant partnerships beyond its academic appointment. ..