The Supreme Court has set an early marker for counting post-election day ballots after the US Supreme court ruled in a 5-3 vote that Wisconsin cannot count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
Many have deemed it to be an outcome that could have significant sway on the presidential race.
It comes as Donald Trump continues rhetoric about potential voter fraud as a result of postal votes, with many fearing that it could result in a contested election between either candidate.
However, the court rejected a Democratic attempt to allow mail-in votes, to be received up to six days after the election in Wisconsin, in a move that many see as a significant boost to Trump.
READ MORE: US Election Day 2020: When is it, how does voting work and what time will we get results?
In the ruling, Brett Kavanaugh suggested that state courts may not have the last word in interpreting state election rules.
A divided Supreme Court said Monday that ballots in Wisconsin could be counted only if they are received by Election Day amidst the pandemic, dealing a victory to the Republican-led Wisconsin state legislature.
— Dianne Gallagher (@DianneG) October 27, 2020
The vote was 5-3, @Arianedevogue reports.
"Under the U.S. Constitution, the state courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal elections"
States that require mail-in ballots to be returned by Election Day "want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Republican state legislatures in some states, including Pennsylvania, have blocked efforts to speed up the counting of mail-in ballots on election night.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here