Source: Bloomberg
Author: Greg Stohr
The battle around the President of the United States is in full swing. It does not rule out the possibility of disputes that the two parties cannot resolve the votes and the possibility of the Supreme Court.However, this probability is not high.
The Supreme Court resolved 24 years in the 2000s' deadlock, and the election of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris stimulated the guessing the sequel to the Century Lawstore.If Trump, a former president, has an advantage in the Supreme Court, who has the majority of judges who occupy an absolute majority in conservatives and have three judges who have personally appointed him.
But legal reality and even mathematics show that this possibility is not high.Although there have been more than 190 lawsuits related to elections since 2023, the Supreme Court has increased the threshold for judges to accept such disputes.
Although the lawsuit that George W. Bush would defeat Ali Gore in the 2000s in 2000 showed how the lawsuit was on how the lawsuit led to the Supreme Court after the selection, the reason why the judges were shot at the time was that it was.Because the results of the election have been completely tied to less than 1,000 votes in a state.What is in sharp contrast is that when Trump needs to overthrow Joe Biden at least three states in 2020, the Supreme Court is unwilling to intervene.
If the election results are ruling, the Supreme Court that has been deeply involved in the US political dispute will be more concerned.In July, the agency supported Trump's claims for the presidential exemption, and at least temporarily prevented the criminal prosecution that he tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election, thereby boosting his election.
Joshua Douglas, a professor of election law at the University of Kentucky, believes that the probability of reappearing the "Bush Telk" is "quite small"."Unless you have to do so, the court will not want to get in."
Category contraction
The Supreme Court has taken measures in recent years that have reduced the scope of acceptance that may involve elections.The court rejected the extensive power of the Republican Party last year to overthrow the state court's claim to interpret the state's election law.
The judges also limited the power of the Federal judge forced the state to change the power of voting rules before the election was about to be held, and the restricted object also included the Supreme Court itself.
"In the area involving the election law, the scope of the case that the court hopes to accept is becoming smaller and smaller," said Derek Muller, a professor at the Election Law of the Virgin University.
State courts have also ruled out some cases.Although the judges were mostly appointed by the Republican Party, the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the request of the Republican Party to restart the manual votes last week.The provisions issued by the Republican Election Commission controlled by the Republican Party will also force county officials to conduct a "reasonable investigation" before the results of the certification election.
The Supreme Court may have their own cautious reasons.In recent years, the public's confidence in the agency has been hit. Because the Republican Party successfully promoted the appointment of three conservative judges, the court also made a series of far -reaching rulings and some moral controversy.
A new poll of the Pew Research Center on Thursday shows that only 20%of voters highly trust the Supreme Court will maintain political neutrality in any election case.
The evenly matched elections almost definitely mean more lawsuits.Most states have laws that allow the failed party to challenge the election results in the extremely fierce campaign.For example, in 2000, then Vice President Gore challenged the advantage of then Bush Governor Bush at 537 votes in Florida.
The challenge caused the Supreme Court of Florida to order about 65,000 votes.When the ruling was made, it was only four days left on December 12, the deadline of Congress acknowledged the results of the state.
The Supreme Court issued the next day to suspend the re -counting. Three days later, it was announced that the Florida Court offered different standards to evaluate the votes in different areas of the state, so as to make a hammer for Bush's victory.
Muller said that a similar situation may have to play a decisive role again.
"There must be a state to become a detonation point and the gap between the victory and defeat must be very narrow," he said, "Then you need some means to attract the attention of the Supreme Court."
