Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-542_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

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

The  Eighth  Circuit  split  from  the  Pennsylvania  Supreme 
Court,  granting  a  preliminary  injunction  against  an  at-
tempt  by  the  Minnesota  Secretary  of  State  to  extend  the 
legislature’s deadline to receive ballots by seven days.  Car-
son v. Simon, 978 F. 3d 1051, 1059–1060, 1062 (2020).  This 
divide on an issue of undisputed importance would justify 
certiorari in almost any case.  That these cases concern fed-
eral elections only further heightens the need for review. 

A 
Elections are “of the most fundamental significance un-
der our constitutional structure.”  See Illinois Bd. of Elec-
tions v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U. S. 173, 184 (1979). 
Through them, we exercise self-government.  But elections 
enable  self-governance  only  when  they  include  processes 
that  “giv[e]  citizens  (including  the  losing  candidates  and 
their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election.” 
See Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Leg-
islature, ante, at 3 (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in denial of 
application to vacate stay); accord, Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 
U. S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam) (“Confidence in the integrity
of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of 
our participatory democracy”).

Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system.  They
sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the in-
tegrity and fairness of elections.  To prevent confusion, we
have thus repeatedly—although not as consistently as we 
should—blocked  rule  changes  made  by  courts  close  to  an
election.  See Purcell, supra.1 

—————— 

1 See also Merrill v. People First of Ala., ante, p. ___ (Merrill II); Andino 
v. Middleton, ante, p. ___; Merrill v. People First of Ala., 591 U. S. ___ 
(2020)  (Merrill  I);  Republican  National  Committee  v.  Democratic  Na-
tional Committee, 589 U. S. ___ (2020) (per curiam); Veasey v. Perry, 574 
U. S. 951 (2014); North Carolina v. League of Women Voters, 574 U. S. 
927 (2014) (allowing enjoined provisions to remain in effect for the up-
coming election).