Watson v. Republican National Committee · ¶109
The majority’s remaining arguments are patently insufficient to overcome what text, context, history, and precedent establish. First, the majority notes that several provisions of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) cross-reference state-law deadlines for ballot receipt. See, e.g., 52 U. S. C. §20303(b)(3). The majority next invokes the interpretive canon that counsels in favor of reading statutes in a way that accommodates later legislative enactments. Ante, at 7–8; see West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U. S. 83, 100–101 (1991) (noting that this substantive canon does not reveal “what the lawmakers must have had in mind” but rather advances the normative value of consistency across the U. S. Code). The majority then concludes that the election-day statutes must not impose federal ballot-receipt deadlines because UOCAVA’s cross-…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.