Federal appeals courts crucial for Trump

Judges backed by president are deciding election disputes

This month, a federal judge struck down a decree from Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas limiting each county in the state to a single drop box to handle the surge in absentee ballots this election season, rejecting Abbott’s argument that the limit was necessary to combat fraud.

Days later, an appellate panel of three judges appointed by President Donald Trump froze the lower-court order, keeping Abbott’s new policy in place — meaning Harris County, with more than 2 million voters, and Wheeler County, with well under 4,000, would both be allowed only one drop box for voters to hand-deliver their absentee ballots and avoid reliance on the Postal Service.

The Texas case is one of at least eight major election disputes around the country in which federal district court judges sided with civil rights groups and Democrats in voting cases, only to be stayed by the federal appeals courts, whose ranks Trump has done more to populate than any president in more than 40 years.

The rulings highlight how Trump’s drive to fill empty judgeships is yielding benefits to his reelection campaign even before any major dispute about the outcome may make it to the Supreme Court. He made clear the political advantages he derives from his power to appoint judges when he explained last month that he was moving fast to name a successor to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg so the Supreme Court would have a full contingent to handle any election challenges, which he has indicated he might bring in the event of a loss.

In appointing dozens of reliable conservatives to the appellate bench, Trump has made it more likely that appeals come before judges with legal philosophies sympathetic to Republicans on issues including voting rights. The trend has left Democrats and civil rights lawyers increasingly concerned that they face another impediment to their efforts to assure that as many people as possible can vote during a pandemic.