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
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Notice that @JonahDispatch does not argue that Barrett is crazy or stupid or bad. Instead he acknowledges the truth that she will likely make a big difference on the Court, and she is being appointed, along partisan lines, at the last minute.
Here's a model of the other way you can be an effective advocate: by actually talking about Barrett's record as a judge.
Sidney Powell alleges that Judge Flynn should be recused because he said unflattering things about her client while he was sentencing him for a felony.
She alleges that he said these things because of Rachel Maddow, and not because of the facts before him.
Are they trying to get me to vote for Biden twice?
Democrats plan to "flood America" with illegal immigrants and force police officers to choose between their jobs and enforcing unconstitutional laws. No not THOSE laws.
Contrary to Justice Thomas' thin-skinned complaint, it's not Obergefell that brands people opposed to gay marriage as bigots. That's the cultural shift that occurred when lots of young people came to accept gay marriage, and lots of older people died. /1
As for the argument that Kim Davis' religious liberty was threatened when a gay couple asked for a marriage license, I am skeptical that Justice Thomas would extend this anywhere else.
/2
Imagine, for instance, someone with a sincere religious objection to marrying people who had committed serious domestic violence.
That's a valid complaint, from a sincere place, and yet the Court would likely say it was none of that person's business. /3
I think it would be interesting to study, if SCOTUS overturns Roe and Casey, how many states have already declared fetuses to be persons, which would make abortion, or travel to get abortion, murder, with no statute of limitations.
Also interesting would be whether a law that is on the books, but unenforceable, may be applied retroactively if that law is declared constitutional.
If I were looking to point out the problems with forcing women to give birth, I think the purely discretionary enforcement of laws carrying mandatory life sentences would be a good thing to focus on.
The 11th circuit said the reason this was not a poll tax was because the fines were part of a felon's punishment. There's no rule against paying off someone else's fines, even if it incidentally means they can now vote.
And it's not an incentive to vote because the felon doesn't have to make any promises to get the fine paid.
Indeed there are some people in the world who might see millions of dollars being paid into court systems and victim's funds from out of state as a good thing.