Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-542_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

10 

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. 
DEGRAFFENREID 
THOMAS, J., dissenting 

tunity to do so almost two years before the next federal elec-
tion  cycle.  Our  refusal  to  do  so  by  hearing  these  cases  is 
befuddling.  There is a clear split on an issue of such great 
importance that both sides previously asked us to grant cer-
tiorari.  And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently 
meritorious  to  warrant  review.  By  voting  to  grant  emer-
gency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they
think petitioners are likely to prevail.  Despite pressing for 
review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant cer-
tiorari because they think the cases are moot.  That argu-
ment fails. 

The  issue  presented  is  capable  of  repetition,  yet  evades 
review.  This exception to mootness, which the Court rou-
tinely invokes in election cases, “applies where (1) the chal-
lenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated
prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable 
expectation that the same complaining party will be subject 
to  the  same  action  again.”  Davis  v.  Federal  Election 
Comm’n,  554  U. S.  724,  735  (2008)  (internal  quotation
marks omitted) (resolving a dispute from the 2006 election); 
see  also  Anderson  v.  Celebrezze,  460  U. S.  780,  784,  and 
n.  3  (1983)  (resolving  a  dispute  from  the  1980  election).
Here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision 
about six weeks before the election, leaving little time for
review in this Court.  And there is a reasonable expectation
that these petitioners—the State Republican Party and leg-
islators—will  again  confront  nonlegislative  officials  alter-
ing election rules.  In fact, various petitions claim that no 
fewer  than  four  other  decisions  of  the  Pennsylvania  Su-
preme Court implicate the same issue.3  Future cases will 
arise as lower state courts apply those precedents to justify
intervening in elections and changing the rules. 

—————— 

3 Pet. for Cert., O. T. 2020, No. 20–845 (challenging three decisions); 

Pet. for Cert., O. T. 2020, No. 20–810 (challenging one decision).