Thread by @ASFleischman

It certainly might SEEM crazy that the governor of a state can arbitrarily limit access to ballot boxes based on vague, poorly articulated security concerns. It might seem like a lot of last-minute election changes geared at suppressing turnout are, in fact, corrupt. But really/1

https://twitter.com/chucklindell/status/1315883900418379777

Sorry, Twitter has ordered that all reasonable explanation for the actions of a government official must be contained in one tweet. /2

Here's the opinion, which was visited, rather generously, by the Italics fairy

ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…

Judge Willet points out that various ways that voter restrictions have been eased in response to the pandemic, and argues that because it is easier to vote in some ways, this restriction doesn't have to make sense:

The district court made what I might think was a factual finding that this is a moderate voting restriction, but the 5th Circuit says it is not a restriction at all.

Then the Court zigs a little bit and says that even if the only thing the governor did was restrict ballot locations without the other expansions, it would be only a de minimis restriction on the right to vote:

The Court also accepts the governor's justification for the law, and is particularly critical of the district court's expectation that the State produce evidence of voter fraud to be allowed to make the change, noting that SCOTUS had accepted other limitations without such proof.

And there's no equal protection problem because each county is treated exactly the same, in accordance with the governor's desire for uniformity:

Judge Ho argues that both the district court and the Governor were wrong for rewriting laws at the last minute, but is especially critical of how the Governor went about it:

Judge Ho writes that rewriting these laws was a legislative, not an executive task:

Judge Ho writes that giving the Governor the unilateral power to alter election laws provides him with the opportunity to corruptly expand or restrict the franchise to serve his political ends:

For my part, knowing next to nothing about election law, what strikes me is that the measures are taken together to measure whether they are an expansion or restriction, instead of being looked at "myopically" on their own.

It strikes me that if the Governor can tactically restrict some kinds of voting at the same time that he expands others, say, to ensure high urban or rural turnout, he doesn't particularly have to justify the decision because the Court will simply take the bitter with the sweet.