Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Statement of ALITO, J. 

sponse to Application for Stay in No. 20A53 etc., p. 9.  In-
stead of doing what either party sought, the Court simply 
denied the stay.  Although there were four votes to enter a 
stay, the application failed by an equally divided vote.  Now, 
in a last ditch attempt to prevent the election in Pennsylva-
nia  from  being  conducted  under  a  cloud,  we  have  been 
asked to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari, to expedite 
review,  and  to  decide  the  constitutional  question  prior  to 
the election. 
  It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the con-
stitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before 
the  election.   That  question  has  national  importance,  and 
there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court 
decision violates the Federal Constitution.  The provisions 
of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, 
not state courts, the authority to make rules governing fed-
eral  elections  would  be  meaningless  if  a  state  court  could 
override  the  rules  adopted  by  the  legislature  simply  by 
claiming  that  a  state  constitutional  provision  gave  the 
courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought ap-
propriate for the conduct of a fair election.  See Art. I, §4, 
cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. 
  For  these reasons,  the question  presented  by  the  Penn-
sylvania  Supreme  Court’s  decision  calls  out  for  review  by 
this Court—as both the State Republican and Democratic 
Parties  agreed when  the former  applied  for  a stay.   But  I 
reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time 
at this late date to decide the question before the election. 
  That does not mean, however, that the state court deci-
sion  must  escape  our  review.    Although  the  Court  denies 
the motion  to  expedite,  the petition for  certiorari remains 
before us, and if it is granted, the case can then be decided 
under a shortened schedule.  In addition, the Court’s denial 
of the motion to expedite is not a denial of a request for this 
Court  to  order  that  ballots  received  after  election  day  be 
segregated so that if the State Supreme Court’s decision is