Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 2

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

1 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20A66 
_________________ 

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. 
WISCONSIN STATE LEGISLATURE, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY 

[October 26, 2020] 

  JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH 
joins, concurring in denial of application to vacate stay. 
  Weeks before a national election, a Federal District Judge 
decreed that Wisconsin law violates the Constitution by re-
quiring absentee voters to return their ballots no later than 
election day.  The court issued its ruling even though over 
30 States have long enforced the very same absentee voting 
deadline—and for understandable reasons:  Elections must 
end sometime, a single deadline supplies clear notice, and 
requiring ballots be in by election day puts all voters on the 
same  footing.    “Common  sense,  as  well  as  constitutional 
law, compels the conclusion that government must play an 
active role in structuring elections,” and States have always 
required  voters  “to  act  in  a  timely  fashion  if  they  wish  to 
express their views in the voting booth.”  Burdick v. Taku-
shi, 504 U. S. 428, 433, 438 (1992). 
  Why did the district court seek to scuttle such a long-set-
tled tradition in this area?  COVID.  Because of the current 
pandemic, the court suggested, it was free to substitute its 
own election deadline for the State’s.  Never mind that, in 
response to the pandemic, the Wisconsin Elections Commis-
sion decided to mail registered voters an absentee ballot ap-
plication and return envelope over the summer, so no one 
had to ask for one.  Never mind that voters have also been 
free  to  seek  and  return  absentee  ballots since September.  
Never mind that voters may return their ballots not only by