Thread by @JoshuaADouglas, BREAKING: 5th Cir. upholds Texas having only one ballot drop box per [...]

Josh Douglas

JoshuaADouglas

BREAKING: 5th Cir. upholds Texas having only one ballot drop box per county.

Implausibly, the court finds that the Tex. Gov& #39;s decision *expands* the right to vote instead of *restricts* it.

Up is down.

Here is the opinion: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-50867-CV0.pdf">https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/... https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1315886595942350849">https://twitter.com/JoshuaADo...

Pay attention to this footnote. It& #39;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& #39;t actually about the "right to vote."

It is just so disingenuous for the court to argue that the Texas Gov& #39;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.

It& #39;s always the voter& #39;s fault for not jumping through numerous hoops to cast a ballot. It& #39;s never incumbent upon the state to make voting easier.

That& #39;s the current state of voting rights law in the federal courts.

And once again, the state receives a pass on demonstrating a "precise interest" for a law that burdens voters (which SCOTUS case Anderson had required). The state can simply assert a generalized interest in election administration and preventing voter fraud to win.

The court here cites SCOTUS case Crawford on voter ID laws--but even its cite of Crawford is wrong. The Court did not "uphold" Indiana& #39;s photo ID law. It instead refused to invalidate it cause P& #39;s didn& #39;t have enough evidence of the burdens. That& #39;s a crucial distinction.

Oh my goodness. The court says there is no equal protection problem because the "rule" is uniform across the state: one drop box per county.

WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT COUNTIES ARE DIFFERENT SIZES?!?!

NOTE: The court *does not* rest decision on Purcell Principle (courts shouldn& #39;t change election rules as the election nears).

Instead, this is all about deference to the state.

I& #39;m bummed that I have a new leading case for my Essay on this very point. https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1315078676342603776?s=20">https://twitter.com/JoshuaADo...

https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1315078676342603776?s=20

Wow. In his concurrence, Judge Ho would go further and restore Texas& #39;s even more restrictive voting laws--disregarding the Governor& #39;s order that moved up early voting.

What& #39;s the point of courts if they will just rubber stamp violations of the constitutional right to vote?

You can follow @JoshuaADouglas.

Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: