I've been giving a lot of thought to the Wisconsin case. (I can't talk about the Fifth Circuit case right now without yelling.) I tend to find myself in the @jamalgreene camp--that it's a close call.

On the one hand, I can see and understand unease with courts legislating--actually changing the operation of state election law, including deadlines and such. Courts generally rule on the legality of laws or government conduct and strike them down or enjoin their operation.

Less commonly do judges get involved in the "minutiae" of things like deadlines.

On the other hand, what the district judge concluded here (and what I think is absolutely correct here) is that operating absentee provisions as provided under state law in these pandemic conditions would infringe the right to vote.

So for those decrying judicial activism by the district court, what, exactly, would you have the remedy be? You've got a violation of the right to vote on the one hand and NO WAY OF PREVENTING IT on the other hand? Would the only solution be a damages claim after the fact?

That cannot be right. Judicial involvement in details is far from unprecedented--in Brown v. Plata, the Court upheld a specific order to decrease the population of California prisons by a specific amount.

While extraordinary, that relief was necessary to prevent future constitutional violations. I think the same thing is true here given the timeline, the nature of the right at issue, and the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

I also share the anger and sadness of many, including @LeahLitman, at the tone-deafness and hypocrisy of the message sent by the opinion and the result created by the opinion:

that the Court postpones all arguments indefinitely for safety (because they decline to use videoconferencing software) but requires WI voters to literally risk their lives to exercise their right to vote.