U.S. Supreme Court actions affecting the November 3, 2020, general election

This article covers subjects specific to the 2020 general election. It has not been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
Click here for more information about our 2020 election coverage.

Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk

Use the buttons below to see Help Desk hubs for other years. 2022 »

Disputed results Presidential election lawsuits and recounts Post-election lawsuits

Frequently asked questions General questions Presidential election Processing/counting mail ballots Results and certification Disputing results • Officeholder transitions

Absentee/mail-in voting analysis Mail-in voting by state, 2016-2018 Mail-in rejection by state, 2016-2018 Uncalled races, 2018 When can states begin counting? Processing, counting, and challenging ballots

Voting in 2020 Absentee/mail-in voting • Early voting • Voter ID Poll opening and closing times Recount laws by state Recount margin requirements by state U.S. Supreme Court actions

Elections by state AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

Since August 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken actions affecting the November 3, 2020, general election in six states. This article summarizes the actions taken by the high court in these states.

The 2020 election took place against a backdrop of uncertainty. Our readers had questions about what to expect in elections at all levels of government, from the casting of ballots to the certification of final results. Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk was designed to answer those questions.

U.S. Supreme Court actions by state

The map below highlights states whose policies and procedures for the November 3, 2020, general election have been affected by U.S. Supreme Court actions. For additional details, see the sections below the map.

Alabama

• Case name: Merrill v. People First of Alabama
• Issue: A federal district court issued a ruling lifting Alabama's ban against curbside voting. A federal appeals court upheld this ruling, prompting the state to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Outcome: On a 5-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state and blocked the lower court orders, thereby reinstating Alabama's prohibition against curbside voting.
• Decision date: October 21, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On October 21, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-3 vote, reinstated Alabama's prohibition against curbside voting.

  On September 30, 2020, Judge Abdul Kallon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued the original order lifting the state's ban on curbside voting. On October 13, 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously affirmed Kallon's ruling. The panel included Judges Adalberto Jordan, Jill Pryor, and Barbara Lagoa.

  Secretary of State John Merrill (R) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to block Kallon's order. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in Merrill's favor. Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented. The court majority did not release an opinion explaining its reasoning. Sotomayor wrote a dissent, which Breyer and Kagan joined.

North Carolina

• Case name: Berger v. North Carolina Board of Elections
• Issue: The North Carolina State Board of Elections extended the state's absentee/mail-in ballot return deadline, allowing ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received by 5 p.m. on November 12, 2020, to be counted. A state court upheld the deadline extension, prompting the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, allowing the deadline extension to stand.
• Decision date: October 29, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On October 29, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reinstate North Carolina's statutory absentee/mail-in ballot return deadline, allowing the state election board's extension to stand. Ballots postmarked on or before Election Day would be counted so long as they were received by 5 p.m. on November 12, 2020. The statutory receipt deadline would have required that ballots be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by November 6, 2020.

  Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh formed the majority. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Newly-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case. The court issued a similar order in a separate case on October 28, 2020.

• Case name: Moore v. Circosta
• Issue: The North Carolina State Board of Elections extended the state's absentee/mail-in ballot return deadline, allowing ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received by 5 p.m. on November 12, 2020, to be counted. A federal district and a federal appellate court upheld the deadline extension, prompting the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, allowing the deadline extension to stand.
• Decision date: October 28, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On October 28, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reinstate North Carolina's statutory absentee/mail-in ballot return deadline, allowing the extension ordered by the North Carolina State Board of Elections to stand. Ballots postmarked on or before Election Day would be counted so long as they were received by 5 p.m. on November 12, 2020. The statutory receipt deadline would have required that ballots be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by November 6, 2020.

  Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh formed the majority. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Newly appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case.

  The court majority did not release an opinion with its order. Gorsuch, joined by Alito, wrote the following in his dissent: "[Efforts] like these not only offend the Elections Clause's textual commitment of responsibility for election lawmaking to state and federal legislators, they do damage to faith in the written Constitution as law, to the power of the people to oversee their own government, and to the authority of legislatures." Thomas dissented from the court's judgment, but did not sign on to Gorsuch's opinion.

Pennsylvania

• Case name: Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar
• Issue: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the mail-in ballot return deadline, allowing all ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received by 5 p.m. on November 6, 2020, to be counted. The Republican Party of Pennsylvania asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case on an expedited schedule and issue a ruling on the merits.
• Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to expedite consideration of the case, allowing the extended deadline to stand.
• Decision date: October 28, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On October 28, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to expedite consideration of a case involving the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's extension of the state's mail-in ballot return deadline, allowing the extended deadline to stand. Ballots postmarked on or before Election Day would be counted so long as they were received by 5 p.m. on November 6, 2020.

  The court ruled unanimously on the matter. However, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, released a statement criticizing the state supreme court's action: "It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election. That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution." Alito added, "But I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election."

  Newly appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case.

• Case name: Scarnati v. Boockvar
• Issue: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the mail-in ballot return deadline, allowing all ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received by 5 p.m. on November 6, 2020, to be counted. Republican leaders in the state legislature asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the statutory return deadline, pending appeal.
• Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, allowing the deadline extension to stand.
• Decision date: October 19, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On October 19, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block the state supreme court's order extending the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots to November 6, 2020, for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day.

  On September 17, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued the order on the deadline extension after a request from Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D). On September 28, 2020, Joseph Scarnati and Jake Corman, Republican legislative leaders, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the original receipt deadline (8 p.m. on Election Day).

  The U.S. Supreme Court voted 4-4 on the matter, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan voting not to intervene. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to grant the petition. When the court reaches a tie vote, the lower court's ruling is allowed to stand.

Rhode Island

• Case name: Republican National Committee v. Common Cause Rhode Island
• Issue: A federal district court and a federal appellate court upheld a settlement agreement suspending Rhode Island's witness/notary requirement for absentee/mail-in ballots. The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Rhode Island appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the witness/notary requirement.
• Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, allowing the suspension of the witness/notary requirement to take effect.
• Decision date: August 13, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On August 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Rhode Island to reinstate Rhode Island's witness/notary requirements for absentee/mail-in ballots.

  On July 30, 2020, Judge Mary McElroy, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, approved a settlement reached by the parties in Common Cause Rhode Island v. Gorbea. The state agreed not to enforce witness or notary requirements for mail-in ballots in both the September 8, 2020, primary and November 3, 2020, general elections. The plaintiffs agreed to the retention of identification requirements they had originally challenged. The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Rhode Island appealed the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On August 7, 2020, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit issued a per curiam ruling upholding the settlement. Republicans then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  In its unsigned August 13 order, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, "Unlike Merrill v. People First of Alabama and other similar cases where a State defends its own law, here the state election officials support the challenged decree, and no state official has expressed opposition. Under these circumstances, the applicants lack a cognizable interest in the State's ability to 'enforce its duly enacted' laws." Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have granted the application for a stay.

South Carolina

• Case name: Andino v. Middleton
• Issue: Federal district and appellate courts issued a series of conflicting rulings on South Carolina's witness requirement for absentee/mail-in ballots. This prompted the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the state's statutory witness requirement.
• Decision date: October 5, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On October 5, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated South Carolina's witness requirement for absentee/mail-in ballots.

  A federal district court had first suspended the requirement. That suspension was reversed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The panel's decision was overturned by the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc, reinstating the suspension. It was this action that was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 5, 2020.

  The Supreme Court exempted ballots cast before it issued its order and those received within two days of the order. Absentee/mail-in ballots cast after that time would be subject to the reinstated witness requirement.

  The court issued its order without noted dissent.

Wisconsin

• Case name: Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature
• Issue: A federal district court extended Wisconsin's absentee/mail-in ballot return deadline to November 9, 2020, for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day. A federal appeals court reversed this decision and reinstated the original return deadline (received by November 3, 2020), prompting an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-3 vote, declined to intervene, allowing the statutory return deadline to stand.
• Decision date: October 26, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On October 26, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 against reinstating a court-ordered extension of the receipt deadline for absentee/mail-in ballots. As a result, the receipt deadline remained November 3, 2020.

  On September 21, 2020, Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an order extending the ballot receipt deadline to November 9, 2020, for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day. However, Conley immediately suspended his ruling pending appeal.

  On October 8, 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit voted 2-1 to block Conley's order. As a result, the ballot receipt deadline reverted to its original date: November 3, 2020. Judges Frank Easterbrook and Amy St. Eve formed the majority. Judge Ilana Rovner dissented. Several groups – including the Democratic National Committee and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin – petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the deadline extension.

  Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh declined to intervene, allowing the Seventh Circuit's order to stand. Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

  In his concurring opinion, Kavanaugh said: "[The] district court's injunction was unwarranted for three alternative and independent reasons: The District Court changed the state election laws too close to the election. It misapprehended the limited role of federal courts in COVID–19 cases. And it did not sufficiently appreciate the significance of election deadlines." Roberts and Gorsuch also wrote concurring opinions.

  In her dissent, Kagan said: "The facts, as found by the district court, are clear: Tens of thousands of Wisconsinites, through no fault of their own, may receive their mail ballots too late to return them by Election Day. Without the district court’s order, they must opt between 'brav[ing] the polls,' with all the risk that entails, and 'los[ing] their right to vote.'" Breyer and Sotomayor joined Kagan's dissent.

Voting information by state

Click a state on the map below to read information about voting procedures in that state.

Click your state

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Voting_in_STATE

See also

• Voting in 2020
• Changes to election dates, procedures, and administration in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
• Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk: Disputing election results