Watson v. Republican National Committee · ¶98
In any event, the majority does not explain what sort of evidence respondents would need to offer in order to “precisely tie” the States’ practices “to the text of the election- day statutes.” Ante, at 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). Readers are left guessing what kind of evidence suffices. Perhaps the majority is looking for legislative floor statements or committee reports stating: “We would really like to give the boys in the field some extra time for their ballots to arrive, but alas, the Presidential Election Day Act of 1845 prohibits us from doing so.” But see FS Credit Op portunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., 608 U. S. ＿＿＿, ＿＿＿–＿＿＿ (2026) (slip op., at 11–12) (discounting the probative value of such evidence). Regardless, the majority places the burden on the wrong side. Given the infeasibility of the majority’s alternative explanations for States’ Civil War…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.