Reading this opinion makes is abundantly clear that this court does not believe there is a fundamental, individual right to vote enshrined within the U.S. Constitution. The court rejects all claims of a burden on individual voters.
Shorter 5th Circuit: your ballot may be thrown out for a signature mismatch, but too bad so sad, it doesn't matter that you've lost your right to vote!
The harm done in Crawford, the 2008 voter ID case, is immeasurable. Courts are using that case not only to uphold stricter and stricter photo ID laws but also to uphold basically any regulation of the voting process in the name of generic "election integrity" concerns.
🚨5th Cir: "It is well established that the electoral process poses a risk of fraud."
Well established by whom? Where's the evidence?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD on #SCOTUS 4-4 decision refusing to intervene in Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. It's a BIG deal.
Normally, the U.S. Supreme Court won't hear cases from state courts about state law. This decision was under PA state constitution's protection for right to vote. 1/
The PA Supreme Court had extended absentee ballot deadline due to pandemic, saying the PA Constitution's "free and equal" clause required expanded voter access.
That should have ended the matter. 2/
But PA Republicans argued that the PA Supreme Court's decision altered the "manner" of running elections under Art. I, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which lets state "legislatures" determine the "times, places, and manner" of holding elections. 3/
THREAD: How many times have federal appellate courts unduly deferred to state legislatures or election officials in recent days, rejecting challenges and failing to uphold the constitutional right to vote? Let us count. 1/
3rd Circuit, rejecting challenge to Pennsylvania’s signature requirement for candidates to appear on the ballot. 2/
5th Cir., reversing a district court order that had rejected Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s directive to allow only one ballot drop off location per county. 3/
Pay attention to this footnote. It's a continued attack on the ability of the U.S. Constitution to vigorously protect the right to vote, suggesting that laws that direct the voting process aren't actually about the "right to vote."
It is just so disingenuous for the court to argue that the Texas Gov's Oct 1 order, which explicitly forbid counties to use more than one drop box after several counties announced they would do so, actually "expands" the right to vote.
FL Amend. 4 was supposed to re-enfranchise 1.4 million people w/ felony convictions. @tampabaytimes@propublica research shows only 31,400 Floridians w/ felony convictions have registered.
"it might be America’s biggest case of voter disenfranchisement."
h/t @rickhasen and his indispensable Election Law Blog.
Notably, the story says that 31,400 is only people who served time in prison and have been released. So the number of new registrants is surely higher. But still, only "8 percent of FL's felons have registered to vote since Amendment 4 passed."
It's time for the #KYSen debate between @AmyMcGrathKY and @LeaderMcConnell. Follow along, friends, and I'll give you the highlights. It's go time! 1/
McGrath: Hits McConnell right away for knowing about #COVID19 as early as January but not warning Kentuckians about the threat. 2/
McConnell: starts by congratulating McGrath on her military service.
Now we'll wait for McGrath to mention how she wrote to McConnell as a kid about how she wanted to be a fighter pilot and he never responded. It won't take long, I'm sure. 3/
The court here basically says that voters will probably suffer an infringement of the constitutional right to vote, but that the judge's hands are tied because of SCOTUS and 11th Circuit's insistence on the Purcell Principle not to change rules too close to an election.
Notice how apologetic district judge is here. Court says Plaintiffs had very strong evidence that the voting machines will infringe the right to vote, but that it must reject the claim cause of appellate precedent.
It's the Purcell Principle and undue deference on steroids.