Online news, media and entertainment company

Supreme Court’s Vague Election Orders Are a 2020 Wild Card In the unbelievably complicated run-up to the 2020 elections, a variable we really aren’t used to seeing is frequent interventions in election law disputes by the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s largely a product of the  vast wave of litigation  by competing voting-rights and voting-suppression interest groups, mostly generated by adjustments in election procedures attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it’s made more frustrating by the fact that the Supreme Court’s involvement is via largely unexplained “orders” in response to “emergency” requests for rulings, which can make life difficult for lower courts and the contending parties. As Adam Liptak of the New York  Times   observes , we are in uncharted territory here: At least nine times since April, the Supreme Court has issued rulings in election disputes. Or perhaps “rulings” is too generous a word for those unsigned orders, which addressed matters as consequential as absente

Gujarat HC starts live streaming of proceedings Proceedings were live on the YouTube link — provided on the Gujarat HC website — for over five hours and about half-a-dozen cases were heard. Around 68,324 viewers watched the channel on Monday. The first hearing that was live streamed on Monday was a plea seeking relief for admission to medical colleges through NEET for students who had not taken the Class 12 exam from Gujarat. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The Gujarat high court on Monday became the first in the country to start live streaming proceedings on a YouTube channel, with the court of chief justice Vikram Nath accessible to the public through a link on the court’s official website. Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde said on Monday that in practice though, live streaming could be misused as already he was facing several complaints over the virtual hearings taking place over the videoconferencing app Vidyo. According to an administrative order issued by justice Nath, the live te

Supreme Court rejects Democratic attempt to extend Wisconsin mail-in voting deadline (CNN) A divided Supreme Court said Monday that mail-in ballots in Wisconsin could be counted only if they are received by Election Day. Democrats in the state had asked the court to allow the counting of ballots that arrive up to six days after Election Day if they were postmarked by November 3. The ruling was 5-3, coming just before the Senate voted to add Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by her liberal colleagues, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from the court's order. Senate confirms Trump's Supreme Court nominee a week ahead of Election Day Last week, the court had upheld a ruling by a state court in Pennsylvania extending the mail-in ballot deadline there. Early voting began in Wisconsin  last week, and the court's decision could impact the tally in a key battleground. Wisconsin was one of three Rust Belt states that gave