Democrats and voting-rights activists, along with dissenting judges and Justices, argue that courts should make decisions that encourage enfranchisement, especially during a global pandemic. Chief Justice John Roberts has staked out the middle ground, arguing that state courts can interpret state laws but that federal courts should stay above the fray.

Amid all the solomonic parsing, good news may yet await Americans who are eager to see a quick, clean resolution to the presidential race. For one, the incoming litigation from the Trump and Biden campaigns may be moot if the final vote tallies aren't razor thin. Even if a court rules on a case that results in thousands of ballots being invalidated, it may not change the final result. "We still have votes to count," says Edward B. Foley, an electionlaw expert at Ohio State University. "It's still possible the margins of victory in all the battleground states are decisive enough that it's not going to be Bush v. Gore–type litigation." It's also possible important cases may be resolved quickly at the local level. That would prevent lengthy, high-profile fights at the Supreme Court that could tarnish the credibility of the election's outcome.

Even if the fight does go up to the Supreme Court, there's a clear end in sight. Under U.S. law, state electors are presumably valid if chosen by Dec. 8, and electors meet to cast their votes on Dec. 14. On Jan. 6, the newly sworn-in Congress counts the results and the Vice President pronounces them official. Which means even this unusually partisan and unruly moment in American democracy could help underscore one still reliable truth: all the bluster and litigiousness in the world can't displace the rule of law.

譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。