This article was originally published in Common Dreams under Creative Commons 3.0 license. Read the original article
By Jessica Corbett
Although the US Supreme Court has a right-wing supermajority with multiple appointees of President Donald Trump, the nation’s top tribunal rejected his administration’s effort to set aside thousands of California ballots on the eve of the midterm elections.
The one-sentence order simply says that the application for an injunction pending appeal, presented to Justice Elena Kagan—one of the three liberals—and referred by her to the full court, is denied, with no noted dissents.
Trump has long claimed that voter fraud by immigrants is a rampant issue in the United States—despite evidence to the contrary—and his Department of Justice sued California last week after the state refused to set aside ballots from a list of voters the DOJ claimed could be noncitizens and thus ineligible to vote, based on databases known to be full of errors.
Democratic election attorney Marc Elias was among those celebrating the justices’ denial of an emergency stay. He noted that “the court did not even ask for opposition briefs!”
See Also: Beyond clean streets: How Indore's Jatra is setting a new benchmark for zero-waste events
The lawyer called it “a complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ,” and “another victory for Elias Law Group and our clients.”
Joyce White Vance, a University of Alabama law professor and legal commentator on networks including MS NOW, similarly declared that “the Supreme Court declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California.”
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—who could lead the chamber if Democrats win a majority on Tuesday—also applauded that “the Supreme Court just denied the Trump Justice Department’s corrupt request for an injunction in the California vote count,” calling it “another complete and total defeat for the extremists.”
As The Associated Press reported Monday:
A district court judge previously denied the Justice Department’s request and warned that the demand could disenfranchise citizens in Tuesday’s midterm elections to determine control of Congress.Also on Monday in Washington, another federal judge ruled against the administration’s efforts to make last-minute demands of California election officials, finding they violated the US Constitution.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday also pointed to recent rulings against the administration in a social media exchange with Bill Essayli, first assistant US attorney for the Central District of California.
While the Supreme Court has sometimes sided with Trump’s agenda during his second term, it has rejected some of his recent attacks on democracy, including a September decision against his US Postal Service rules for mail-in ballots.
Despite the win at the high court on Monday, the president’s efforts to interfere with the midterms are expected to continue. Given that, the Advancement Project, Legal Defense Fund, and NAACP are seeking an order to block federal law enforcement agents from serving as “election monitors.”
The midterms come as Trump’s public approval is at an all-time low, and Democrats highlight his illegal war on Iran and the related cost-of-living crisis in their efforts to secure majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives for the rest of his second term.
[Wc/GS]
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store
