"If you didn't sign it," said the King, "that only makes the matter worse."

Ballot-counting will proceed in a Pennsylvania state-court election, over the objection of the Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch trio. The real issue, Alito writes, is the potential impact on fall elections: https://t.co/2Ih6tVdpch pic.twitter.com/oNqSvFIeYH

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 9, 2022

I guess we need the whole thread, or it doesn't quite make sense:

It's an argument, and it can be a reason, even a legitimate one — but that's far more often something you see in parties' (or, more often, amicus) briefs, not from a justice.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 9, 2022

This is Alito's Adventures in Ballotland, and he's the Queen of Hearts. pic.twitter.com/ys83Q2IdB0

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 9, 2022

This is what you call "slicing the baloney so thinly it only has one side."

The reference to the Queen of Hearts is slightly off.  In the trial in "Alice in Wonderland," the White Rabbit reads the charges against the Knave of hearts (who "stole those tarts/And took them quite away").  The king responds:   "Consider your verdict!," the King said to the jury.  "Not yet, not yet," the Rabbit hastily interrupted.  "There a great deal more to come before that!"

Although at the end of the trial there is this exchange:

"Let the jury consider their verdict!," the King said for about the twentieth time that day.

"No, no, said the Queen.  "Sentence first--verdict afterwards!"

The simpler analysis is:  Alito just really doesn't want people to vote, and any barrier to their doing so, no matter how minor, is sufficent unto the task. (No, I don't think it's an argument; nor a legitimate one.)

Nice work if you can get it.  Or if you're a Supreme Court Justice.

(It's perhaps worth point out that I took those quotes from Walt Kelly's cartoon version of the trial.  His "King" was his charicature of Joseph McCarthy.  I shall ever after see Samuel Alito as Simple J. Malarkey.

Adding: I would just note Alito’s argument is dealing with this:

“The case concerned a state law enacted in 2019 that permitted all registered voters to vote by mail. The law required voters using mailed ballots to 'fill out, date and sign' a declaration printed on the outside of the return envelope that said they were qualified to vote," said the report. "The Supreme Court’s order let stand a ruling from a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, which said the part of the state law requiring the declarations to be dated ran afoul of a provision of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The provision prohibits government officials from denying the right to vote 'because of an error or omission' if it 'is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote.'"

If you don’t dot your “i’s” and cross your “t’s” correctly, you aren’t being denied the right to vote. You’re just doing it wrong.

Sux to be you.