Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 28

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

pandemic), the clarity of a constitutional injury, and the ex-
tent  of  voter  disenfranchisement  threatened.    At  its  core, 
Purcell  tells  courts  to  apply,  not  depart  from,  the  usual 
rules of equity.  See, e.g., Winter v. Natural Resources De-
fense  Council,  Inc.,  555  U. S.  7,  24  (2008)  (“In  each  case, 
courts  must  balance  the  competing  claims  of  injury  and 
must  consider  the  effect  on  each  party  of  the  granting  or 
withholding  of  the  requested  relief”  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted)).  And that means courts must consider all 
relevant factors, not just the calendar.  Yes, there is a dan-
ger that an autumn injunction may confuse voters and sup-
press voting.  But no, there is not a moratorium on the Con-
stitution  as  the  cold  weather  approaches.    Remediable 
incursions  on  the  right  to  vote  can  occur  in  September  or 
October as well as in April or May.   
  And so the district court rightly held here.  It is hard to 
see how the extension of a ballot-receipt deadline could con-
fuse  citizens  about  how  to  vote:  At  worst,  a  voter  not  in-
formed of the new deadline would (if she could) put her bal-
lot in the mail a few days earlier than needed.  Nor would 
that measure discourage Wisconsin citizens from exercising 
their right to the franchise.  To the contrary, it would pre-
vent the State from throwing away the votes of people ac-
tively  participating  in  the  democratic  process.    And  what 
will  undermine  the  “integrity”  of  that  process  is  not  the 
counting  but  instead  the  discarding  of  timely  cast  ballots 
that, because of pandemic conditions, arrive a bit after Elec-
tion Day.  Purcell, 549 U. S., at 4.3  On the scales of both 
constitutional justice and electoral accuracy, protecting the 

—————— 

3 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH alleges that “suspicions of impropriety” will re-
sult if “absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the 
results of an election.”  Ante, at 7.  But there are no results to “flip” until 
all valid votes are counted.  And nothing could be more “suspicio[us]” or 
“improp[er]” than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on elec-
tion night.  To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is 
to disserve the electoral process.