The Supreme Court on Monday rejected on a 4-4 vote a Republican ploy to have the Court intervene in a case from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — and therefore potentially every election law dispute in the country. But far from a major Democratic win, the decision could spell bad news for the future of voting rights protections. The implications of this decision, with Judge Amy Coney Barrett waiting in the wings to cast the tiebreaking vote in a similar case if — as expected — the Senate confirms her nomination to be a justice, are enormous.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected on a 4-4 vote a Republican ploy to have the Court intervene in a case from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — and therefore potentially every election law dispute in the country. But far from a major Democratic win, the decision could spell bad news for the future of voting rights protections. The implications of this decision, with Judge Amy Coney Barrett waiting in the wings to cast the tiebreaking vote in a similar case if — as expected — the Senate confirms her nomination to be a justice, are enormous.
