Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

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

7 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in denial 
of application for injunctive relief) (slip op., at 2).  But the 
Wisconsin  legislature  has  not  for  a  moment  considered 
whether recent COVID conditions demand changes to the 
State’s  election  rules;  that  body  has  not  even  met  since 
April.   Compare  Litke, Fact  Check:  Wisconsin Legislators 
Have  Gone  About  6  Months  Without  Passing  a  Bill,  USA 
Today,  Oct.  7,  2020  (online  source  archived  at  www.su-
premecourt.gov) (“Wisconsin lawmakers have been among 
the least active in the country, according to a database of 
all  COVID-related  legislation  across  the  country  main-
tained by the National Conference of State Legislatures”), 
with Andino v. Middleton, ante, p. ___ (staying an order en-
joining South Carolina’s witness requirement for mail bal-
lots when that rule was part of a legislative package to ad-
just voting procedures in response to COVID).  And if there 
is one area where deference to legislators should not shade 
into acquiescence, it is election law.  For in that field politi-
cians’ incentives often conflict with voters’ interests—that 
is, whenever suppressing votes benefits the lawmakers who 
make the rules. 

II 
  JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH’s  concurring  opinion  goes  further 
than the court of appeals.  Rather than relying on Purcell 
and  deference  alone,  he  also  concludes  that  Wisconsin’s 
election rules, as applied during the COVID pandemic, do 
not violate the right to vote.  See ante, at 6–9.   That follows, 
in his view, because voting by mail is “easy” in Wisconsin 
and because in-person voting is “reasonably safe.”  Ante, at 
11,  12,  17.4    (In  another  concurrence,  JUSTICE  GORSUCH 

—————— 

4 Oddly, the concurrence suggests that no change in the State’s ballot-
receipt deadline is needed because Wisconsin has “incorporated the les-
sons” from April’s primary “into its extensive planning for the November 
election.”    Ante,  at  8.   But  the  April  election  was  conducted  under  the 
same extended deadline that the Court today precludes.  See supra, at 1.  
One  might  have  thought  the  April  election’s  principal  lesson  is  that  a