Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-542_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

in ballots composed just 4% of ballots cast in 2018.  But the 
legislature  dramatically  expanded  the  process  in  2019, 
thereby increasing the mail-in ballots cast in 2020 to 38%.
This  expansion  impedes  postelection  judicial  review  be-
cause litigation about mail-in ballots is substantially more
complicated.  For one thing, as election administrators have
long agreed, the risk of fraud is “vastly more prevalent” for
mail-in ballots.  Liptak, Error and Fraud at Issue as Absen-
tee Voting Rises, N. Y. Times, Oct. 6, 2012.  The reason is 
simple: “[A]bsentee voting replaces the oversight that exists 
at polling places with something akin to an honor system.” 
Ibid.  Heather  Gerken,  now  dean  of  Yale  Law  School,  ex-
plained in the same New York Times article that absentee 
voting allows for “simpler and more effective alternatives to 
commit fraud” on a larger scale, such as stealing absentee 
ballots or stuffing a ballot box, which explains “ ‘why all the
evidence  of  stolen  elections  involves  absentee  ballots  and 
the like.’ ”  Ibid.  The same article states that “[v]oting by
mail is now common enough and problematic enough that 
election experts say there have been multiple elections in
which no one can say with confidence which candidate was
the deserved winner.”  Ibid. 

Pennsylvania knows this well.  Even before widespread
absentee voting, a federal court had reversed the result of a 
state senate election in Philadelphia after finding that the
supposedly  prevailing  candidate  “conducted  an  illegal  ab-
sentee ballot conspiracy and that the [election officials] cov-
ertly facilitated the scheme with the specific purpose of en-
suring a victory for” that candidate.  Marks v. Stinson, 1994 
WL 146113, *29, *36 (ED Pa., Apr. 26, 1994).  This problem
is  not  unique  to  Pennsylvania,  and  it  has  not  gone  away.
Two years ago, a congressional election in North Carolina 
was thrown out in the  face of evidence of tampering with
absentee  ballots.    Because  fraud  is  more  prevalent  with
mail-in  ballots,  increased  use  of  those  ballots  raises  the 
likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions