The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off a new nine-month term on October 7th. As the stirring debates linger over illegal voting by migrants, back-and-forth allegations of suppressed voting schemes to dilute the voting power of people of color leveled against Republicans by Democrats, the Justices of the highest court in America may cast the deciding vote to declare the winner during the upcoming contentious presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump on November 5.
Political disputes can easily raise serious constitutional challenges during a presidential election cycle. For example, less than four weeks before the election, the Supreme Court Justices have already demonstrated they’re not hesitant to change the electoral laws by acquiescing to a Republican proposal to require proof of citizenship on some Arizona ballots.
What if the Justices agree that proof of citizenship to vote is necessary in Arizona?
Meanwhile, a Fulton County judge in Georgia dismissed a lawsuit last Thursday from Democrats (on Thursday, October 10th.) The lawsuit demanded Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) investigate the State Election Board members who implemented strict modifications to election laws ahead of the 2024 presidential election. The lawsuit alleged that the board members acted unethically by convening a meeting on short notice and passing new rules, including one that mandates a “reasonable inquiry” before election results can be certified.
“They need to be held accountable because we need to have fair elections,” said Georgia State Senator Islam Parkes.

“Whether the Harris vs. Trump case will spark another election controversy like Bush v. Gore remains to be seen. Yet still, the Supreme Court may soon have to decide a high-profile case that will likely impact the election results and potentially influence the outcome of the presidential election.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to stop the Florida vote recount in the historic Bush vs Gore presidential contest in 2000 – gave Bush the victory, and, thereafter influenced the course of the country. Judges have been involved in post-election disputes on other occasions, but this particular case is arguably the most prominent example of the judicial branch intervening directly in an election in contemporary times.
Following more than 60 unsuccessful lawsuits in which then-President Donald Trump claimed that rampant voter fraud was the reason he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, this year’s presidential election could drag so deep into the mud until the Supreme Court just might need to throw an anchor into the mix to declare a winner.
Lawsuits
For starters, five lawsuits outlining problems with the state’s voter rolls and absentee ballot counting were recently filed against the North Carolina State Board of Elections last month. Many mention similar concern heightened by prominent national politicians like former president Donald Trump, that flaws in the electoral system are enabling large numbers of noncitizens to register to vote or cast ballots.
Political science professor Steven Greene of NC State told Carolina Public Press that there’s a smoke machine at play.
According to Greene, the lawsuits might be an attempt by Republicans to make “stolen election” allegations after the election.
Are Foreigners Voting in U.S. Elections?
The U.S. Constitution mandates that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections, while most states prohibit noncitizens from voting in statewide elections.
Several important politicians and political organizations have raised concerns about noncitizens participating in the voting process. This led to legal disputes and prompted several states, including North Carolina, to push for constitutional amendments that emphasize that only citizens are eligible to vote in elections conducted within the state.
Republicans in Congress recently sought to tie the approval of a major spending bill to the inclusion of a provision that aims to prohibit undocumented immigrants from participating in U.S. elections. It is a no-brainer that currently, noncitizens are only eligible to vote in certain local or school board elections in a limited number of municipalities nationwide.
During a recent presidential debate, former President Trump amplified this effort by asserting that his political adversaries were advocating for the admission of undocumented immigrants into the country to secure their votes.
Nonetheless, it is crucial to highlight that there is no compelling evidence to support allegations that noncitizens are significantly influencing political races through unlawful voting practices.
While the U.S. Constitution requires residents to be U.S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and every state bans noncitizens from voting in statewide elections, a group of high-profile politicians and political groups have raised concerns about noncitizens voting in large numbers.
In addition to eliciting a series of lawsuits, these efforts have led various states to put constitutional amendments on the ballot reiterating that only citizens can vote in elections held within the state. North Carolina is one.

Supreme Court Decision Can Alter Presidential Election
The Supreme Court has these potential leeways to change the outcome of the 2024 election:
- By challenging a state court’s decision on state election law. Typically, the Supreme Court only hears federal law cases. For instance, the Moore v. Harper decision in 2022 suggested that the justices could intervene if state judges went beyond normal judicial review in ruling on state election law. The vague language used in the decision leaves room for the Supreme Court to question state courts’ decisions regarding state law in federal elections.
- State courts in North Carolina have been the target of multiple lawsuits contesting the state’s voter registration and absentee voting policies. The most important one, which claims that 225,000 voters were registered fraudulently, has recently been transferred to federal court.
- If Carolina state is crucial, the justices may use this case as one of multiple avenues to decide the 2024 presidential contest, regardless of whether it remains there or is returned to state court. Last Monday, the justices rejected a challenge to Pennsylvania’s voter registration procedures, serving as a reminder that swing states could face a similar problem.
Another leeway for the court opens after the presidential votes are cast. Once a state’s winner is declared, each state must “certify” a slate of electors before the Electoral College formally announces the new president. And what happens if a state fails to submit its slate of electoral votes to Congress in time?
As mentioned, in North Carolina, multiple lawsuits were filed in state court challenging the state’s voter rolls and absentee ballot procedures. Will the lawsuits stall the electors’ duties to announce whether Harris or Trump won?
Historically, the importance of submissions received after the designated “safe harbor” date in December was limited. According to the 1887 Electoral Count Act, submissions made by the specified date were deemed “conclusive,” although tardy submissions were not necessarily excluded from consideration.
The revised law made the “safe harbor” deadline mandatory, but it doesn’t specify the consequences if a state misses the deadline.
Congress must determine whether it can still consider the state’s Electoral College slate, or if the state’s seats will be excluded from the final tally. The new law leaves this question for the courts to decide and sets up a speedy process for certification-related disputes to reach the Supreme Court Justices.
So let’s say the Georgia state election board, which is supported by MAGA, declines to declare Kamala Harris the winner. Indeed, a date for the state’s certification is set by state law, known as the “crystal clear deadline.”
Nevertheless, the MAGA board members could argue that they are constitutionally prohibited by their oaths from following state legislation that compels them to approve of an outcome they believe is fraudulent, even if the votes are legal.
Under these circumstances, the governor may find himself powerless due to a disagreement over state law, which might lead to a judicial challenge under the revised Electoral Count Act.
In such a scenario, the justices would find themselves in a challenging position as they seek to address glaring loopholes in the new statute. The statute does not offer guidance on how to proceed when there is no certified slate, thus complicating a case that ultimately determines the swearing-in of the next President.
Another avenue to the Supreme Court emerges following the joint session of Congress, where the Electoral College results are ratified. Given its contentious nature, this is likely the least probable, which provides a potential sense of relief.
How Many Congress Members Needed to Object to An Electoral College Certification?
Federal law permits one-fifth of senators and one-fifth of representatives to jointly object to a state’s Electoral College certification if the votes were not cast “regularly.” Even though there is ambiguity around this phrase the interpretation suggests, according to political experts, that votes must comply with the federal Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws. These particular legalities could apply to votes cast for a presidential candidate ineligible to serve.
Once the challenges to declare the winner get super-hot, Democrats may assert that Donald Trump’s accusations indicating the election was stolen from him triggered the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to prevent his return to the White House.
When the Colorado election authorities sought to disqualify Trump from the primary ballot, arguing that he was an insurrectionist prohibited under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that only federal authorities, not states, could disqualify a presidential candidate.
Although the Colorado court’s disqualification opinion is ambiguous, it doesn’t prevent the possibility of a last-minute ruling that Trump, as an alleged insurrectionist, is ineligible to hold federal office.
Democrats may encounter significant challenges to convince the House and Senate Republicans to support their position. However, in the event of a loss, they might pursue legal recourse by contending that their colleagues misconstrued their authority and obligations during the joint session.

Logically, Democrats could find a sympathetic district court judge who disapproves of Chief Justice John Roberts’ purported actions in Trump’s immunity cases. This course of action may result in Trump’s disqualification being dragged once again before the justices, just as the countdown to the conclusion of the electoral process begins.
Bottom line: If a lawsuit impacts the outcome of the presidential race, the election would need to be extremely close for the court to decide how people voted, or one side would need to demonstrate a serious, fundamental issue with how the election was conducted.