Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 33

10  DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. WISCONSIN 

STATE LEGISLATURE 
KAGAN, J., dissenting 

factual  findings  just  listed,  along  with  the  credible  testi-
mony  of  the  elections  commission’s  chair—all  matters  in-
disputably entitled to deference from an appellate tribunal.  
Those findings,  and  not  the  concurrence’s substitute  facts 
purporting  to  show  that  voting  in  Wisconsin  is  safe  and 
easy, should properly ground today’s decision.5 
  A related flaw in the concurring opinion is how much it 
reasons from normal, pre-pandemic conditions.  Cf. Repub-
lican National Committee v. Democratic National Commit-
tee, 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (slip 
op., at 4) (“The Court’s suggestion that the current situation 
is not substantially different from an ordinary election bog-
gles the mind”) (internal quotation marks omitted).  A “rea-
sonable election deadline,” the concurrence says, “does not 
disenfranchise  voters.”    Ante,  at  10.    I  have  no  argument 
with that statement, even though some voters may overlook 
the deadline.  See Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752, 757–
758 (1973).  But what is “reasonable” in one set of circum-
stances  may  become  unreasonable  in  another.   And  when 
that  switch  occurs,  a  constitutional  problem  arises.    So  it 
matters  not  that  Wisconsin  could  apply  its  ballot-receipt 
deadline when ballots moved rapidly through the mails and 
people could safely vote in person.  At this time, neither con-
dition  holds—again,  according  to  the  district  court’s  emi-
nently believable findings.  Today, mail ballots often travel 
at a snail’s pace, and the elderly and ill put themselves in 
peril  if  they  go  to  the  polls.    So  citizens—thousands  and 
thousands of them—who have followed all the State’s rules 

—————— 

5 Note as well that nothing rides on the exactness of the district court’s 
estimate.  Suppose that without the ballot-receipt extension, only (only?) 
half as many votes would be discarded as the district court thought.  The 
court’s decision would have remained the same, and so too everything I 
say  here.    But  as  for  the  concurrence?    Who  can  know?    JUSTICE 
KAVANAUGH does not reveal how many uncounted votes he thinks would 
violate the Constitution.  Nor does he suggest how many votes short of 
that level will be discarded because of the Court’s decision today.