Here he said it again: "he even agrees with several of the changes proposed. But, despite advocates’ insistence to the contrary, LaRose does not feel he has the authority to take these actions unilaterally..."
Let me clear, we didn't receive the immediate relief we sought. That is disappointing.
But on the fundamental question that brought us to court in the first place?
6/
On this two-year narrative by LaRose that Ohio law has kept him from implementing online applications?
The Court agreed with us: “Having reviewed R.C. 3509.03, we find the plain language of the General Assembly does not prohibit qualified electors from making a written..."
7/
"...absentee ballot application to the county director of elections by email or fax or otherwise.”"
The law is not the problem, the Court is confirming.
Then later: “Nothing in this determination should be read as limiting the secretary from, in an exercise..."
8/
"...of his reasonable discretion, implementing R.C. 3509.03 to permit methods of delivery other than mail or in-person should the circumstances warrant it.”
Again, the court is saying LaRose can DO online or electronic applications if he wants to. It's up to him.
9/
So LaRose wasted two years telling the state he couldn't implement a 21st century system many other states have implemented, when it fact he could have done so all along.
He's been wrong the entire time, requiring voters to print, mail and put stamps on these applications
10/
Our only hope now is that after yesterday's ruling, he can finally stop pretending the law is an obstacle here, and he can start doing what so many other states have been doing without problems.
He's wasted enough time on this already.
Please get to work.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Boy, was American democracy on display last night in JD Vance’s hometown—Middletown, Ohio.
Patriotism at its best.
1/
But even though he was invited in numerous ways—including certified mail, so we know he got the invite—Warren Davidson, the House member for the community and the (highly gerrymandered) Eighth Congressional district, didn’t show up.
He missed out.
2/
We even left a chair for him, but it sat empty for two hours.
But that didn’t stop hundreds from coming from multiple counties….and we had a town hall anyway!
Justice Alito released his dissent in the North Texas case, complaining that:
1) The Court acted before the appellate court below had ruled, and even though it was apparently planning to rule soon
1/
2) The Court ordered without having heard from the government—only from the plaintiffs; and the Government had no chance to respond at the lower level either
2/
3. The government had told the district court that no flights were imminent, and the plaintiffs had not proved that they were.
I always read @steve_vladeck — here’s what he wrote about the Supreme Court’s early morning order: “at least initially, this strikes me as a massively important—and revealing—intervention by the Supreme Court, for at least three reasons:”
1/
1) “the Court didn’t wait at all….This may seem like a technical point, but it underscores how seriously the Court, or at least a majority of it, took the urgency of the matter.”
2/
2) “the Court didn’t hide behind any procedural technicalities…Here, though, the Court jumped right to the substantive relief the applicants sought—again, reinforcing not just the urgency of the issue, but its gravity.”
3/
Not long ago, I described how one of the most respected conservative judges in the nation during my law school days was J. Michael Luttig. Judge Luttig, of the Fourth Circuit, was often on the short list to be a Supreme Court Justice,
1/
and considered a top “feeder” judge to prized Supreme Court clerkships, especially for members of the Federalist Society.
So in recent years, as Judge Luttig has raised alarms about Trump’s excesses, and the fraying of our national rule of law, we should all pay attention.
2/
But he wasn’t the only Fourth Circuit star at the time.
There is another: Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit—a Reagan appointee—has also been among the most highly regarded conservative jurists in the nation for a generation.
3/
If you’re continuously stunned by the behavior of gerrymandered GOP representatives in the world of Citizens United, don’t be.
Here’s how to think of them:
They are no longer public servants.
Improving public outcomes is not their goal. Nor do they do better in life…
1/
…by serving the public interest.
In fact, if they serve the public interest, they will likely be primaried. And lose.
Think of them as the servants of certain private interests. See that they are in public office to use public power to benefit those private interests.
2/
That’s why public outcomes consistently fall in the places they control (such as gerrymandered red states like Ohio), while certain interests seem to always gain.
When those public outcomes fall, it doesn’t impact them at all.
Two sets of institutions— each central parts of the infrastructure of a functioning democracy—find themselves facing a similar dilemma.
Higher ed institutions, and law firms.
1/
In case people question the centrality of these institutions’ roles in our democracy, know that Trump and Vance fully understand:
That’s why Vance has declared universities and professors the enemy to what he and his allies seek to achieve.
2/
And it’s why Trump has declared war on some law firms—because he knows that, in our system of justice, robust representation of both sides (including the side holding the government or political figures accountable) is essential. Without that balance, the system collapses.
3/