Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-542_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

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

three days.  The court also ordered officials to count ballots 
received  by  the  new  deadline  even  if  there  was  no  evi-
dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed 
by election day.  That decision to rewrite the rules seems to 
have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any
federal election.  But that may not be the case in the future.
These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address 
just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec-
tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. 
The refusal to do so is inexplicable. 

I 
Like most States, Pennsylvania has a long history of lim-
iting  the  use  of  mail-in  ballots.   But  in  October  2019,  the 
Pennsylvania Legislature overhauled its election laws.  Rel-
evant here, it gave all voters the option of voting by mail, 
and it extended the deadline for officials to receive mail bal-
lots by several days to 8 p.m. on election day.  2019 Pa. Leg. 
Serv.  Act  2019–77.    Then,  in  response  to  COVID–19,  the 
legislature  again  amended  the  law  but  decided  not  to  ex-
tend the receipt deadline further.  See 2020 Pa. Leg. Serv. 
Act 2020–12. 

Displeased  with  that  decision,  the  Pennsylvania  Demo-
cratic  Party sued in state court.   It argued  that the court
could  extend  the  deadline  through  a  vague  clause  in  the
State Constitution providing, in relevant part, that “[e]lec-
tions shall be free and equal.”  Art. I, §5.  The Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court agreed.  On September 17, it held that this
“free and equal” provision enabled the court to extend the
deadline three days to accommodate concerns about postal
delays.

Petitioners  promptly  moved  for  emergency  relief,  filing 
an application for a stay on September 28.  That application 
easily  met  our  criteria  for  granting  relief.
  See  Hol-
lingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam).