Watson v. Republican National Committee · ¶40
Notably, plaintiffs admit that they cannot “precisely” tie this historical practice to the text of the election-day statutes. Tr. of Oral Arg. 119–120. That is a delicately put understatement. Plaintiffs’ theory is that if the relevant States could have changed the rules, they would have changed the rules. Yet despite a deep dive into the historical record, plaintiffs have found no evidence that any of these States wanted to extend ballot-receipt deadlines, much less that they thought federal law prevented them from doing so.Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.