{"id":244302,"date":"2021-02-24T10:00:36","date_gmt":"2021-02-24T04:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=244302"},"modified":"2021-02-24T11:57:51","modified_gmt":"2021-02-24T06:27:51","slug":"elections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court of The United States: <\/strong>In a significant decision, the Court by a ratio of 6:3, declined to review petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s \u201cmail-in ballots\u201d policy. The lawsuits that the court turned down concerned Republican Party\u2019s bids to invalidate Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail ballot due date. It was claimed that Pennsylvania\u2019s policy of \u2018accepting timely sent ballots that arrived up to three days after Election Day was illegal\u2019.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Pennsylvania has a long history of lim\u00aditing the use of mail-in ballots. However in October 2019, the Pennsylvania Legislature overhauled its election laws and gave all voters the option of voting by mail, and it extended the deadline for officials to receive mail bal\u00adlots by several days to 8 p.m. on Election Day. Then, in response to COVID\u201319, the legislature again amended the law but decided not to ex\u00adtend the receipt deadline further. Displeased with that decision, the Pennsylvania Demo\u00adcratic 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 <em>\u201celec\u00adtions shall be free and equal.\u201d<\/em> [Art. I,\u00a75]. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed and held that the <em>\u201cfree and equal\u201d<\/em> provision enabled the court to extend the deadline three days to accommodate concerns about postal delays.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Although the SCOTUS majority refused to entertain any more petitions, however, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, JJ., dissented from the majority. <strong>Clarence Thomas, J.,<\/strong> stated that it is the Federal Constitution, not state con\u00adstitutions, which gives state legislatures the authority to regulate Fed\u00aderal elections; the Republicans had a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s decision violated the Constitution by overriding \u201c<em>the clearly expressed intent of the legislature<\/em>\u201d. He further observed that it is fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots did not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election, but he also pointed out that, \u201c<em>We may not be so lucky in the future. Indeed, a sep\u00adarate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have already altered an election result. A different petition argues that after Election Day the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nullified the legislative requirement that voters write the date on mail-in ballots<\/em>\u201d. Thomas, J., also pointed out that in 2018 the percentage of mail-in ballots cast was at 4%, but the legislature dramatically expanded the process in 2019, thereby increasing the mail-in ballots cast in 2020 to 38%. According to Thomas, J., this expansion impeded post election judicial review be\u00adcause litigation about mail-in ballots is substantially more complicated. \u201c<em>The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision about six weeks before the election, leaving little time for review in this Court. And there is a reasonable expectation that these petitioners\u2014the State Republican Party and leg\u00adislators\u2014will again confront non legislative officials alter\u00ading election rules. \u2026<\/em><em> we failed to set\u00adtle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Samuel Alito, J., (for himself and <\/strong><strong>Neil Gorsuch, J.,)<\/strong> observed that the Republican petitions present an important and recurring constitutional question, that whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution Art. I, \u00a74, cl. 1; Art. II, \u00a71, cl. 2, are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. Noting that since this constitutional issue has baffled the lower courts time and again, therefore a SCOTUS review would have been helpful to provide a clear path for them to follow in case of future disputes of such nature. Moreover, now, that the Presidential Election is over, there is no reason for refus\u00ading to decide the important question that these cases pose. \u201c<em>The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legisla\u00adture simply by claiming that a state constitutional provi\u00adsion gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election<\/em>.\u201d <strong>&#8211; <\/strong><strong><em>Bush <\/em><\/strong><strong>v<em>. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd<\/em>.,<\/strong> <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/EjKhLhwr\">2000 SCC OnLine US SC 81<\/a><\/strong>.[Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica Degraffenreid (Nos. 20\u2013542), 592 U. S. (2021), decided on 22-02-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of The United States: In a significant decision, the Court by a ratio of 6:3, declined to review petitions challenging <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[14051,2897,30014,30735],"class_list":["post-244302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-elections","tag-Review","tag-scotus","tag-usa"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Elections\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Elections\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-24T04:30:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-02-24T06:27:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-24T04:30:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-02-24T06:27:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Elections\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy | SCC Times","description":"Elections","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy","og_description":"Elections","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-02-24T04:30:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-02-24T06:27:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/","name":"SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2021-02-24T04:30:36+00:00","dateModified":"2021-02-24T06:27:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Elections","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/elections\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS declines to review Republican Party\u2019s petitions challenging Pennsylvania\u2019s extended mail-in ballot policy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":240396,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/09\/scotus-issues-one-sentence-refusal-to-republicans-seeking-to-overturn-joe-bidens-victory-in-the-state-of-pennsylvania\/","url_meta":{"origin":244302,"position":0},"title":"SCOTUS issues \u201cone-sentence\u201d refusal to Republicans seeking to overturn Joe Biden\u2019s victory in the state of Pennsylvania","author":"Editor","date":"December 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): In a major setback to the Republican Party\u2019s attempts to invalidate the results of recent Presidential Elections, Full Bench of the SCOTUS in a \u201cone sentence\u201d Order, refused a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.\u2019s victory in the state\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":236832,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/06\/scotus-south-carolinas-witness-signature-rule-for-absentee-ballots-temporarily-reinstated\/","url_meta":{"origin":244302,"position":1},"title":"SCOTUS | South Carolina\u2019s witness signature rule for absentee ballots temporarily reinstated","author":"Editor","date":"October 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): In a crucial decision before the upcoming Presidential Elections in the USA, the SCOTUS temporarily reinstated South Carolina's (SC) requirement that absentee ballots include witness signatures. The Court however stated that any ballots cast or received within two days of this order may\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240600,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/12\/texas-bid-to-overturn-the-results-of-us-presidential-election-2020-rejected-due-to-lack-of-standing-under-article-iii-of-the-constitution\/","url_meta":{"origin":244302,"position":2},"title":"Texas\u2019 bid to overturn the results of US Presidential Election 2020, rejected due to lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution","author":"Editor","date":"December 12, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States: The Court on Friday rejected a bid from Texas' Attorney General, supported by President Donald Trump, to block the ballots of millions of voters in battleground states that went in favor of President-elect Joe Biden. Texas\u2019 motion for leave to file a bill of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247055,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/13\/georgia-passes-election-integrity-act-of-2021\/","url_meta":{"origin":244302,"position":3},"title":"Georgia passes Election Integrity Act, 2021","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"The Government of Georgia has passed the Election Integrity Act, 2021 on March 31, 2021 and will come into force on July 1, 2021. The Act has been passed in the wake of USA 2020 elections. It makes significant changes to the way the state will run elections moving forward.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Foreign Legislation&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Legislation","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/foreign\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Election-integrity-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Election-integrity-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Election-integrity-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Election-integrity-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Election-integrity-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233301,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/03\/scotus-lower-courts-order-allowing-a-ballot-initiative-to-collect-signatures-electronically-blocked\/","url_meta":{"origin":244302,"position":4},"title":"SCOTUS | Lower Court&#8217;s order allowing a ballot initiative to collect signatures electronically &#8212; Blocked","author":"Editor","date":"August 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): A majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Alito J, Gorsuch J. and Kavanaugh J. temporarily reversed a lower court order which had extended the deadline for a political action committee to gather signatures for a ballot initiative electronically. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6242,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/07\/11\/provisions-for-postal-ballots-cannot-replace-actual-physical-meetings\/","url_meta":{"origin":244302,"position":5},"title":"Provisions for postal ballots cannot replace actual physical meetings","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 11, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: The question before the Court was whether in view of Section 110 of the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI Circular dated May 21, 2013, a resolution for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation can be passed by a majority of the equity shareholders casting their votes by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;High Courts&quot;","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244302\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}