Despite numerous lawsuits filed by both leading parties, experts forecast that the Supreme Court is unlikely to get involved in election-related disputes after November 5, 2024.
Amendments to the Electoral Count Reform Act and the minimization of the Vice President's role in electoral counts have streamlined litigation processes, making Court intervention less probable, Fox News reported.
Law specialists point to the 2022 modifications of the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) as a significant deterrent to the involvement of the U.S. Supreme Court in the upcoming presidential election disputes. These amendments have clarified procedural ambiguities and reduced the potential for the Vice President to influence the results, assigning a purely ministerial role to this position during the counting of electoral votes.
Both the Republican and Democratic parties have preemptively filed multiple lawsuits in anticipation of the results of the election scheduled for November 5.
According to the revised ECRA, the law requires a swift preliminary hearing conducted by a three-judge panel designated to ensure that any significant legal disputes are resolved expeditiously.
Noted attorney Greg Teufel outlined the ECRA’s specific pathway for these disputes. "It does kind of create a new route into the federal court for a specific limited set of issues being raised under the Electoral Count Act," he mentioned, adding that "there are very limited issues that can be raised under that Act, though."
The amendments dictate that only serious allegations like substantial fraud or wide-ranging violations in election management warrant escalation to the Supreme Court. This makes the threshold for Supreme Court involvement higher than some might expect.
Joseph Burns, a legal analyst, commented on the composition of the Supreme Court which is majorly conservative. "In terms of the makeup of the court, there's no question you've got six appointees of Republican judges at this point," he stated, suggesting that this could influence the court’s decisions should any cases make it that far. Burns highlighted, "You have a more conservative-minded Supreme Court in that respect," which hints at a possible advantage for Republicans seeking stricter statutory interpretations.
Regarding the judicial philosophy surrounding election-related litigation, Jason Torchinsky, an election lawyer, noted the Court’s selectiveness in taking up cases. "If there's a real issue, the Court will take it. If it's something that the Court doesn't think merits a higher-level view, then they'll summarily affirm," he explained.
The sentiment among Supreme Court justices leaning towards minimal intervention unless absolutely necessary was echoed by John Hardin Young, a legal expert specializing in electoral law. "I think that there's now a sensitivity among the nine justices not to get involved unless it were necessary," he noted.
These decisions to not intervene align with a broader trend to preserve the judiciary’s image by avoiding deep engagement in politically charged disputes unless the situation warrants it. However, Greg Teufel warned that the entirety of the act might still come under scrutiny post-election. "The entirety of the act may come under challenge if it's utilized in a way that impacts the outcome of the election in a way that people view as improper, unfair or unlawful," he commented.
In summary, while the upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 5 is poised to generate considerable litigation from both sides of the aisle, the streamlined processes enacted under the revised Electoral Count Reform Act and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court suggest a low likelihood of post-election Supreme Court intervention unless instances of significant legal violations emerge.
These factors combine to make it improbable that the Supreme Court will need to step in to decide the results of the 2024 presidential race.
