The Supreme Court "has just authorized the Pennsylvania electoral authorities to count postal votes received up to three days after the Nov. 3 election date," reports the Washington Post.
Divided, the eight judges currently sitting on the Supreme Court of Washington have indeed rejected "a request filed by the Republicans of Pennsylvania against a measure likely, according to them, to destroy public confidence in the electoral system as a whole".
If the daily in the federal capital recognizes that at first glance it may appear to be an electoral detail, it could have disproportionate consequences in the hotly disputed state of Pennsylvania where “in 2016 Trump did not 'won only 44,000 votes over then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton ”.
What is more, “it shows that the Supreme Court is called upon to play a role in the elections this year; a fortiori if Amy Coney Barrett, the candidate appointed by Donald Trump to replace the dean Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is confirmed in her functions by the Senate ”, notes the newspaper.
A confirmation vote that could take place “as early as next week” and reinforce the weight of the conservatives within the highest American court even though the Supreme Court could find itself arbitrating the outcome of the presidential election if it ci was challenged in court because of, for example, mail-in bulletins arriving after November 3.