Editorial: At the high court, Pennsylvania votes are in the balance

Tribune-Review | Wednesday, October 28, 2020 6:01 a.m.

Fred Schilling/Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States | Associated Press

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is sworn in as a U.S. Supreme Court justice by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The law is built on concepts like precedent and fair play and coloring inside the lines. It follows a script and a timeline. Justice is blind because it is meant to operate only within the confines of the cage of the laws the way they are written.

Thus the courts generally take a dim view of attempts to work outside those lines, to throw away the script and try to pull off Lady Justice’s blindfold.

Plaintiffs are not supposed to file suits frivolously. They may appeal, but within a framework. When given an answer on one issue, once those appeals are exhausted, generally new appeals have to raise new questions.

And when the U.S. Supreme Court gives you an answer, that’s usually it.

The Pennsylvania Republican Party got an answer last week it didn’t like. But it wasn’t about the arguments in its attempt to block counties from counting mail-in ballots up to Nov. 6, three days after Election Day, as long as they had been mailed before the end of Election Day.

It was about whether or not the arguments would be heard. The justices, in a tie vote, declined to hear the case. But that was when there were eight justices. With Justice Amy Coney Barrett sworn in officially Tuesday, there are now nine — and a possibility the case could end up back in Washington.

The GOP filed a request for speedy consideration Friday, four days after its original rejection that allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on the matter to stand. It seems likely the case could be heard, just like Wisconsin’s similar petition.

Hours before Barrett’s ceremonial White House swearing-in Monday, the court sided against allowing the ballots to be counted for an additional six days in Wisconsin.

The issue here is not that counting is good, or not counting is bad, or vice versa. There are valid arguments on both sides.

Going back to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue may be absolutely within the framework of the law. But in flavor it smacks of forum shopping, the practice of attempting to put a case in front of the friendliest judge in hopes of finding justice that isn’t quite so blind.

With the election just a week away, the people of Pennsylvania deserve to know definitively whether all their votes will be counted or not.