Courts are working overtime, thanks to Democrat efforts to change voting rules before the 2020 election.

Many Americans know about the left’s attempts to encourage mail-in ballots. Republicans took them to court in Florida, scoring a big victory.

In Oregon, a group seeking to redraw voting districts wanted to collect signatures online.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. And the highest court gave them the bad news:

The Supreme Court has blocked a lower court ruling that would have made it easier for a group promoting redistricting reform in Oregon to collect signatures in the midst of the pandemic.

The court’s move is the latest example of the justices ruling against plaintiffs who have asked the court to relax ballot rules because of the coronavirus. The Supreme Court turned down a similar request from a group out of Idaho in late July.

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to strike down a 9^th Circuit decision in Oregon. The ruling will prevent a group from collecting signatures online, claiming dangers brought on by the pandemic.

The group “People Not Politicians” wanted to put a measure on the ballot to redraw congressional and legislative maps in Oregon.

That meant getting support from locals via signatures. It appears the group claims COVID made it harder to get in-person signatures, so they wanted to circulate their measure online.

The Supreme Court denied them.

It’s not hard to see how online signature-gathering could have led to fraud. Going door-to-door or other in-person measure ensures those signing are actual Oregon citizens.

Online? There are fewer restrictions. People from other states, or countries, could have signed the measure, inflating the number of signatures.

In fact, if the system is not properly protected, bots and software can auto-generate names and email addresses.

Redrawing districts is a common tactic used by politicians to sway elections in their favor. They try to group up regions of a state based on demographics, hoping it will benefit them in local or federal elections.

This move could have opened the door to countless radical groups redrawing state districts across the country, gaining signatures from non-residents.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court prevented them from doing so, protecting the integrity of the upcoming election.

Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to overrule a 9^th Circuit decision.
• The decision denied a group from collecting signatures online for a redrawing measure.
• The group claimed the pandemic prevented them from collecting signatures in person.

Source: CNN

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether insurers can seek $12 billion from the federal government under a program set up by the Obamacare law aimed at encouraging them to offer medical coverage to previously uninsured Americans.

The justices will hear an appeal by a group of insurers of a lower court’s ruling that Congress had suspended the government’s obligation to make such payments. The insurers have said that ruling, if allowed to stand, would let the government pull a “bait-and-switch” and withhold money the companies were promised.

Moda Inc unit Moda Health Plan Inc and other insurers that sued to try to compel the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make the payments have said the government was supposed to help them recover from early losses they suffered after the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act under Democratic former President Barack Obama.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal from health insurance companies who say the federal government owes them $12 billion from losses sustained under Obamacare https://t.co/uNYYUR6NEq pic.twitter.com/gjcP5hlzLR

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) June 24, 2019

Other insurers involved in the case include Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Maine Community Health Options and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company.

Payments would have come through the law’s so-called risk corridor program that was designed to mitigate insurers’ risks from 2014 to 2016 when they sold coverage to previously uninsured people who bought insurance on exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.

Robert Gootee, chief executive of Moda Inc, said he was encouraged that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

“We remain confident that the court will ultimately hold the government to its promise to pay those companies, including Moda, who answered the government’s call to provide access to affordable health care for the neediest of Americans,” Gootee said in a statement.

HHS declined to comment.

Under the risk corridor program, insurers that paid out significantly less in claims on policies sold through the exchanges than they took in from premiums provided some of their gains to the government. Insurers that paid out more were entitled to government compensation for part of their losses.

Republicans, who have opposed Obamacare from the outset and sought numerous times to repeal it in Congress, have called the risk-corridor program a “bailout” for the insurance industry.

In December 2014, Congress passed an appropriations bill for the 2015 fiscal year that included a rider barring HHS from using general funds to pay the government’s risk corridor obligations.

As a result, the government could compensate insurers only with the money it collected from insurance companies that paid less than they took in from premiums. Congress enacted identical riders for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the federal government was entitled to break a promise to shield insurance companies from some of the risks they took in participating in the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act https://t.co/gxv7Oqvkru

— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 24, 2019

Payments from insurers, though, could not fund all of the claimed risk corridor payments. In November 2017, HHS published statistics indicating that payments from insurers for the three-year period fell short of claimed payments by $12 billion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 last year that Congress, in passing the appropriations riders, implicitly repealed its statutory obligation to pay the insurers. The insurers appealed, arguing that Supreme Court precedents require much more explicit legislative language to eliminate a previously adopted payment obligation.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.