Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf
Page Number: 6

2 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. 
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 
GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

spread.”  Id., at ___, 2020 WL 1638374, *3.  On March 24, 
the Governor ordered Wisconsinites to stay at  home until 
April 24 to slow the spread of the disease.  Ibid. 

Because  gathering  at  the  polling  place  now  poses  dire 
health  risks,  an  unprecedented  number  of  Wisconsin  vot-
ers—at the encouragement of public officials—have turned 
to voting absentee.  Id., at ___, 2020 WL 1638374, *4.  About 
one million more voters have requested absentee ballots in 
this election than in 2016.  Ibid.  Accommodating the surge 
of  absentee  ballot  requests  has  heavily  burdened  election 
officials, resulting in a severe backlog of ballots requested 
but not promptly mailed to voters.  Id., at ___–___, 2020 WL 
1638374, *4–*5. 

B 

Several  weeks  ago,  plaintiffs—comprising  individual 
Wisconsin voters, community organizations, and the state 
and  national  Democratic  parties—filed  three  lawsuits 
against members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission in 
the United States District Court for the Western District of 
Wisconsin.1  The  District  Court  consolidated  the  suits  on 
March 28.  The plaintiffs sought several forms of relief, all 
aimed at easing the effects of the COVID–19 pandemic on 
the upcoming election. 

After holding an evidentiary hearing, the District Court 
issued  a  preliminary  injunction  on  April  2.  As  relevant 
here, the court concluded that the existing deadlines for ab-
sentee  voting  would  unconstitutionally  burden  Wisconsin 
citizens’  right to  vote.  See  Burdick  v.  Takushi,  504  U.  S. 
428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 789 
(1983).  To alleviate that burden, the court entered a two-
fold remedy.  First, the District Court extended the deadline 
for voters to request absentee ballots from April 2 to April 

—————— 

1 The state and national Republican parties intervened as defendants. 
The  District  Court  denied  intervention  by  the  state  legislature,  which 
the Seventh Circuit later allowed.