Democratic Party of Wisconsin filed a joint motion for preliminary injunction, in part to seek an extension for the deadline to receive absentee ballots.92 The motion was granted, but then later overturned by the United States Supreme Court,93 which held that ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day to be valid. This subsequently caused confusion, as there is no legal standard for “postmarked” under Wisconsin law (as exists for “received by”) — and election officials have had to determine what to do with batches of postal ballots that have no postmark.94 That question went at the heart of a seemingly arcane matter that is sure to bedevil states in November: whether to count mail-in ballots based on when they arrive or when they are postmarked, which, if Wisconsin is to be a guide, is already threatening to become the ‘hanging chad’ of the 2020 election.”95 Because countries are just starting to grapple with legal challenges related to elections and the current health crisis, there is no established body of law to guide judicial decision-making and outline reasonable and fair remedies that protect both democracy and public health. Some key considerations for courts will be whether there should be different types of scrutiny for different types of elections, and what legal and operational elements should inform judicial decision-making around postponements and modifications. For example, key elements may include constitutional deadlines, poll worker safety, the existence of interim governance measures, the availability of alternative voting processes and the ability to procure necessary PPE and election materials. It will also be important to consider the types of remedies that are or should be available to the courts with respect to election postponements or modifications. For example, is it appropriate for a court to mandate the use of an alternative method of polling? These are questions without a clear answer — yet. -20- International Foundation for Electoral Systems