BOMBSHELL UPDATE on Trump’s effort to BAN mail ballots at SUPREME COURT

We are now facing the most cataclysmic. decision at the hands of the US Supreme. Court as the justices are now deciding. what to do with Donald Trump's illegal. executive order on banning mail-in votes. just 60 days before the election. Mark, can you explain where we're at right now. as far as the US Supreme Court is. concerned? >> Yeah, Brian, this is all out war right. now. I mean, the fact is that the. Supreme Court ducked the merits of this. case once before. This is a challenge to. a US postal service implementation of. Donald Trump's executive order by.

passing a rule that essentially uh could. uh mail-in voting. Uh it would. have, as you say, a cataclysmic effect. on the ability of states to run. elections uh that are coming up in less. than 60 days because it would dictate to. those states what their mail and ballot. envelopes need to look like. Notwithstanding the fact that in most. states those have already been printed. Uh it would require states to turn over. to the US Postal Service lists of voters.

who are eligible to get mail-in ballots. Then separately another list of voters. who are actually receiving or are to. receive them in the mail. If there is. any difference or differential between. those two lists, not only that voter. would be disenfranchised, but any other. name on that list. So you could have a. list of 10,000 names. If a woman, for. example, changed her last name because. she got married between the first list. and the second, then not only would she.

be disenfranchised, but the other 9,999. on that list uh would be. disenfranchised. And and this is, you. know, now being presented to the Supreme. Court on an emergency basis on. application by the Department of. Justice. Uh and that's where we stand. Uh the briefs in this case will be due. on Wednesday uh at the end of the day. Uh I expect the Department of Justice. will file uh one more brief after that.

probably Thursday morning and then we'll. wait on a Supreme Court decision. But in. the meantime, Brian, there is also. activity going on at the first circuit. which um is the normal trajectory for. this case. And there is a second set of. cases that is taking that will be fully. briefed uh on Tuesday in the DC district. court and that case could quickly move. up the court. So there is a ton going on. here uh that my my uh team at democracy. docket is covering this literally you.

know hour to hour. You and I have done a. series of videos on this on this. channel. I hope everyone takes chance to. subscribe uh to this uh to this channel. and hits the bell to be alerted when. there's new content because Brian when. there is developments when new things. happen you and I get a video out really. fast thanks to your tremendous team led. by Dylan and uh you know that will be. the case here. >> and I would highly recommend for anybody. who's watching right now if you want to. stay on top of this stuff please make.

sure to subscribe to this channel and. also make sure to subscribe to democracy. docket that is how I'm all of my news on. this stuff that has very quickly become. uh the principal outlet uh to follow. everything all the twists and turns of. this story uh as it relates to Trump's. executive order and what's happening at. all the different courts. I should also. note uh that it's Mark's team uh that is. that is litigating this case in the DC. circuit. So uh a small step that. everybody who's watching right now can. take to support his work both in the. media space and in the courts is to.

subscribe to Democracy Docket. That link. is right here on the screen and also in. the post description of this video. Mark, just as a a quick level set, if. and when the Supreme Court decides to. rule on this, does that negate all of. the other cases happening uh at the. lower uh courts, whether it's in the. Massachusetts uh courts, whether it's in. the DC court system? Does it just all. kind of follow the lead of what's. happening at at Scotas? >> Um potentially, but potentially not. I. mean, there are a couple of different. questions that the Supreme Court's going. to have to tackle. Uh, one of them.

[clears throat] is whether or not the. claims that were brought in. Massachusetts were procedurally proper. Now, I I think this is an easy call. I. think at this point the Supreme Court is. not going to be able to deduct this on. procedural grounds, but, you know, like. we've seen crazier things. So. potentially if they ruled against this. the Democratic states and the the. nonprofit groups in Massachusetts, there. would still potentially be other. litigation including in DC. You know, one of the one of the things about the.

claims in DC uh that is somewhat unique. is that they're brought on behalf of the. Democratic Party uh as well as Senator. Schumer and Leader Jeff. And the. audience may remember a case decided in. January by the Supreme Court called the. Boston decision. and Boston is a member. of Congress from Illinois. And. essentially what the Supreme Court said. is that candidates have much broader. standing rights than really anyone else. when it comes to election rules. And. since both um uh Leader Jeff and Senator.

Schumer are candidates and the. Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign. Committee, Democratic Government. Association, Democratic National. Committee represent candidates. they. they they would have the broadest. standing in that case. So you could. imagine that that that could be one. scenario. Obviously, if uh the. plaintiffs are successful and the. Department of Justice loses in the. Supreme Court, then that's really game. set match uh for uh for the Department.

of Justice uh nationwide. Even though. they could try to parse that apart, I. don't think they they'd get very far. Mark, you and I have spoken over the. last several years at this point about. PCEL, this idea that you can't make. changes too close to an election because. it'll cause too much chaos. This usually. works against Democrats and in the. Republicans's favor because Republicans. will um will delay any lawsuits that. Democrats bring against unconstitutional. maps until the very end to the point. where judges will come out and say, "You.

know what, the map is an. unconstitutional or illegal gerrymander. does uh go against the Voting Rights. Act, but we're too close to an election. and so the map is going to have to. stand. And this way, Republicans can ek. out a few seats uh notwithstanding their. illegality. Now, we're in a position. where it actually might work against the. Republicans, this idea of Purcell. But. notwithstanding, there is the. possibility that the Supreme Court can. just ignore Purcell and decide that. Donald Trump's executive order is. somehow valid. And would that not just.

completely upend this upcoming election? I mean, how in good faith, in good. conscience, can the Supreme Court agree. with Donald Trump knowing that there's. no physical way to actually do what. Trump is is mandating that the states. do, which is to, you know, order these. changes and create a database, you know, less than two months out uh from. election day. >> Yeah, I think that this case goes well. beyond Purcell. I mean, Purcell is a.

credential doctrine that I have grave. doubts should ever have been adopted and. certainly has been weaponized by. conservatives uh to aid Republicans. So, like, you know, that that that's my view. on PCEL. But, but PCEL is just is just. that. It's a credential doctrine. It's. the idea that you don't want to change. the rules of elections close to. elections because number one, it makes. it harder on the states to run the. elections and number two that it can. cause voter confusion. What you have. here as you lay out is actually.

something well beyond Purcell. It is. actually the impossibility to run. elections, right? I mean, it's not it's. not like some voters will be confused. and some election officials, you know, will have to rerun paperwork. Like, we're we're talking about here states. that have already printed their ballots. and their ballot envelopes. We're. talking about states that are already. started sending out their ballots. Like, like in this respect, like the genie is. already out of the bottle. This isn't a. boy, this would be uh credentially.

unwise. This is basically telling a. number of states, you just can't use. vote by mail at all. And some of these. states only do voting by mail or have, you know, 50% 60%, 70%, I don't know. what it is in California, but it's north. of that. It's not 100%, but it's like a. really big percentage. And that's true. in Arizona. Uh it's true in Utah. It's. true in Florida. like there are states. with really big votebymale populations.

uh and it would just upend those. elections and it would mean mass. disenfranchisement and before I get like. people saying yes but you know everyone. will just have to turn out and vote in. person there simply aren't enough. machines and enough ballot stock and. enough locations in a state like. California or Washington or Oregon or I. would even say Arizona to have all those. people have to show go up in person, right? I mean, states allocate voting. equipment. They purchase voting.

equipment. They allocate it. They print. in-person ballot stock. They site voting. locations based on an expectation as to. how many people are going to show up in. person versus voting by mail. If you all. of a sudden say all those mail-in. ballots, you know, are not going to go. out and now all those people have to. show up in person. I mean, you're not. talking about long lines in the way in. which we traditionally think about it. you are talking about, you know, cataclysmically long lines. >> Right. Right. I mean, you you've written.

about this at Democracy Docket, but what. would we be looking at? You mentioned. mass disenfranchisement. What would we. be looking at in terms of the number of. Americans that may be disenfranchised by. virtue of the prospect of this decision. uh being granted in Trump's favor? >> Yeah. So, this is a just one estimate. that Democracy Doa did that is wildly. underinclusive. Okay. So what Democracy. did was look at the states that are. suing. So these are only the 24. Democratic states that are suing and. it's 51 million votes voters. Okay? But.

but understand there would be Republican. disenfranchisement. I mean in a lot of. these Republican controlled states like. I mentioned Florida or Utah, there would. be mass disenfranchisement. It's just their uh leadership is either. too afraid of Donald Trump uh doesn't. care about their voters uh or some. combination of that that they are. unwilling to stand up for those voters. I suspect some of them are probably. secretly hoping that the Democrats win,

right? They're hoping that the Democrats. win, but otherwise I'll bet the state of. Utah. >> would go way way higher than that, >> right? I I'll I'll bet the state of Utah. is not looking forward to the prospect. of their automatic voter registration. process being completely upended 5. minutes before the actual election pops. up. Um. people will look at this and they'll. say, "Okay, we just heard you say that. there are not just blue states that are. going to be impacted. It's states like. Arizona, states like Utah, states like.

Florida. Then why is Donald Trump. engaging in this whole process if it's. going to hurt some Republicans? What. would be your response to that? Why is. Donald Trump looking to upend mail. voting? >> So, the answer to that is really simple. I mean, Democracy published a story. recently entitled, "Democrats use mail. voting more than Republicans. That's why. Trump is attacking it." And that pretty. much like is the answer right right then. and there. I mean, if you look at, you. know, just the historic use of of mailin. voting,

it was not favoring one party or the. other. But ever since the 2020 election. when there was COVID and Donald Trump. and Republicans demonizing mail-in. voting, it has just skewed more. Democratic. So the reason why Donald. Trump is attacking mail and voting is. simply because more Democrats use mail. and voting than the Republicans. So when. people say, "Well, this will backfire on. Republicans because don't they live in. more rural areas and don't they this and. don't they that?" The answer is. >> no because more Democrats use mail-in. voting than Republicans. So, if you're. able to shut it down, you are going to.

disenfranchise more Democrats than. Republicans. Plus, on top of that, you. know, don't underestimate the particular. impact that mail-in voting has among. Native Americans, you know, uh, uh, rural Hispanics in places like Texas, uh, in frankly in urban centers where. there's just, you know, not enough real. estate to site enough polling locations, you know, uh, that you that that you. just have really high rates of of mail.

and voting. college students tend to. vote more by mail uh particularly if. they're in state university systems. where Republicans have made it hard for. them to vote on campus. Um so you know. this is why Republicans have attacked. mail-in voting. It's why Donald Trump. goes after mailin voting. It's why the. RNC went to the Supreme Court uh earlier. this year, you know, last term to try to. limit mail-in voting in a case called. Watson that my law firm and I we we. litigated on the other side and we won. Uh but but you know this is this is the. reasons why. Well, look, this is uh I.

think pretty obviously a five alarm fire. in uh in the voting realm. I am grateful. and I know that everybody who's watching. this is grateful for the work that you. and your team are doing uh to protect. mail-in voting at the courts. I should. note that Mark and his team are. litigating this case in in 23 states. right now. They're 23 and0 against the. DOJ for sending private voter data over. to the Department of Justice who trying. to get that data. um and that you'll. continue to fight as this process. continues to play itself out. So again,

for those who are watching to uh to. support the invaluable work that Mark. and his team are doing, a small step. that we all can take is to subscribe to. Democracy Docket, the news outlet that. he founded focused on everything voting. and elections. It's also a great. resource that we'll all have access to. to figure out what's going on on not. just a day-to-day basis, but an hourby-. hour basis at this point. Any breaking. news is going to come from Democracy. Docket itself. So, if you want to sign. up for that news as soon as it breaks, I'm going to put that link right here on. the screen and also in the post. description of this video. If you want.

to see more episodes of Democracy Watch. that you're watching right now, I'm. going to put the link to subscribe to. this channel on the screen as well. I'm. Brian Teller Cohen. >> I'm Mark Elias. >> This is Democracy Watch. >> [music].