Read on Twitter
BREAKING: 5th Cir. upholds Texas having only one ballot drop box per county.
Implausibly, the court finds that the Tex. Gov'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://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1315886595942350849
Implausibly, the court finds that the Tex. Gov'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://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1315886595942350849
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.
It's always the voter's fault for not jumping through numerous hoops to cast a ballot. It's never incumbent upon the state to make voting easier.
That's the current state of voting rights law in the federal courts.
That'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's photo ID law. It instead refused to invalidate it cause P's didn't have enough evidence of the burdens. That'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?!?!
WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT COUNTIES ARE DIFFERENT SIZES?!?!
NOTE: The court *does not* rest decision on Purcell Principle (courts shouldn't change election rules as the election nears).
Instead, this is all about deference to the state.
I'm bummed that I have a new leading case for my Essay on this very point. https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1315078676342603776?s=20
Instead, this is all about deference to the state.
I'm bummed that I have a new leading case for my Essay on this very point. https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1315078676342603776?s=20
Wow. In his concurrence, Judge Ho would go further and restore Texas's even more restrictive voting laws--disregarding the Governor's order that moved up early voting.
What's the point of courts if they will just rubber stamp violations of the constitutional right to vote?
What's the point of courts if they will just rubber stamp violations of the constitutional right to vote?
