Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

8 

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. WISCONSIN 

STATE LEGISLATURE 
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

by election day still have strong interests in avoiding suspi-
cions  of  impropriety  and  announcing  final  results  on  or 
close to election night.   
  To  be  sure, more people  are  voting  absentee during  the 
pandemic.    But  the  State  of  Wisconsin  has  repeatedly  in-
structed voters to request and mail their ballots well ahead 
of time, and the State has taken numerous steps to accom-
modate the increased number of absentee ballots.  Moreo-
ver, the State now has some experience to draw upon when 
administering an election during the pandemic.  Wisconsin 
conducted primary elections in April and August, and has 
incorporated the lessons from those experiences into its ex-
tensive planning for the November election.  See Wisconsin 
Elections  Commission,  April  7,  2020  Absentee  Voting  Re-
port 24 (May 15, 2020) (online source archived at www.su-
premecourt.gov).  And that planning has paid off so far: For 
the November election, more than a million Wisconsin vot-
ers have already voted by absentee ballot. 
  In  attempting  to  justify  the  District  Court’s  injunction, 
Applicants also rely on this Court’s decision in April regard-
ing  the  Wisconsin  primary  election.    They  claim  that  the 
Court  there  approved  the  District  Court’s  change  of  the 
deadline for receipt of absentee ballots in the primary elec-
tion, so long as the ballots were postmarked by election day.  
RNC,  589  U. S.  ___.    That  assertion  is  incorrect.    In  that 
case,  this  Court  explicitly  stated  that  the  District  Court’s 
last-minute extension of the deadline for receipt of absentee 
ballots was “not challenged in this Court.”  Id., at ___ (slip 
op., at 1). 
  In sum, 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 elec-
tion.  It misapprehended the limited role of federal courts 
in COVID–19 cases.  And it did not sufficiently appreciate