Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

9 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

the significance of election deadlines.1 

II 
  The dissent rejects all three of the above conclusions and 
applies  the  ordinary  Anderson-Burdick  balancing  test  for 
analyzing  state  election  rules.    In  the  dissent’s  view,  the 
District  Court  permissibly  concluded  that  the  benefits  of 
the State’s deadline for receipt of absentee ballots are out-
weighed by the burdens of the deadline on voters.  In light 
of  the  three  alternative  and  independent  conclusions  out-
lined above, I do not think that we may conduct that kind 

—————— 

1 A federal court’s alteration of state election laws such as Wisconsin’s 
differs in some respects from a state court’s (or state agency’s) alteration 
of state election laws.  That said, under the U. S. Constitution, the state 
courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal 
elections.    Article  II  expressly  provides  that  the  rules  for  Presidential 
elections are established by the States “in such Manner as the Legisla-
ture thereof may direct.”  §1, cl. 2 (emphasis added).  The text of Article 
II means that “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must pre-
vail” and that a state court may not depart from the state election code 
enacted  by  the  legislature.    Bush  v.  Gore,  531  U. S.  98,  120  (2000) 
(Rehnquist, C. J., concurring); see Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvass-
ing Bd., 531 U. S. 70, 76–78 (2000) (per curiam); McPherson v. Blacker, 
146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892).  In a Presidential election, in other words, a state 
court’s “significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing 
Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.”  Bush v. 
Gore, 531 U. S., at 113 (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring).  As Chief Justice 
Rehnquist explained in Bush v. Gore, the important federal judicial role 
in reviewing state-court decisions about state law in a federal Presiden-
tial  election  “does  not  imply  a  disrespect  for  state  courts  but  rather  a 
respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures.  To 
attach definitive weight to the pronouncement of a state court, when the 
very question at issue is whether the court has actually departed from 
the statutory meaning, would be to abdicate our responsibility to enforce 
the explicit requirements of Article II.”  Id., at 115. 

The dissent here questions why the federal courts would have a role in 
that kind of case.  Post, at 11, n. 6 (opinion of KAGAN, J.). The answer to 
that  question,  as  the  unanimous  Court  stated  in  Bush  v.  Palm  Beach 
County Canvassing Bd., and as Chief Justice Rehnquist persuasively ex-
plained in Bush v. Gore, is that the text of the Constitution requires fed-
eral courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws.