A federal appeals court has agreed to at least temporarily reinstate Ohio’s limit on ballot drop boxes in a move that voting rights advocates say infringes on Ohioans ability to cast their ballots, while it considers whether to make a more permanent ruling on the case.
And another federal judge told Greg Abbott he can’t limit the number of drop boxes.
Looks like a conflict. Damn - those go to the SCOTUS as a rule.
Fuck.
My sentiments exactly.
2 out of the 3 judges on the panel did this, while the 3rd dissented. Wanna guess who appointed them? Hmm? Think TPM might commit an act of journamalism and give you that information so every fucking reader doesn’t have to look it up on their own?
Writing articles about legal decisions on voting rights without including who appointed the judges is like reporting on a baseball game without naming the teams.
PS. Bush the lesser and someone of an orange hue.
So the trick to fucking with election rules according to this appeals court is to do it early enough that it’s not too late, but late enough that any court rulings would occur too late. I’m glad they have an obvious and steadfast rule that isn’t open for exploitation!
…saying the move caused “at most an inconvenience to a subset of voters.”
Hmm, I bet we can guess exactly which voters are members of that subset. One [privileged white] man’s “inconvenience” is another person’s hard-to-overcome obstacle.
Would they potentially pick it up prior to the Deleterious ACB joining the court, and what happens in a tie in the SCOTUS when there’s a discrepancy at the Fed bench level? Whichever suit makes it there first?!
There won’t be a tie. Roberts is all about denying voting rights.
Let’s be honest here… More would be Detrimental to the GOP. Does each county have only one polling place?
My impression is that, even though this won’t be resolved before the election, it will probably backfire on Republicans. People don’t like being told they can’t vote. In fact, I can’t think of too many more effective ways to motivate Democrats to vote than stunts like this.
I don’t know.
Have no way to assess that. They don’t have much time.
No they really don’t and this should backfire, I agree.
I agree that TPM could easily provide more information but the big picture is more complicated than “PS. Bush the lesser and someone of an orange hue.”
For example, some of these people chose to clerk with Carter appointees.
I believe that in a tie vote, both decisions would stand, even where they are are inconsistent with each other. The affected appellate circuits would have then continue to have inconsistent interpretations of the law (to the extent the decisions actually differ on specific points of law) and other circuits would lack authoritative guidance on which is the better view.
The Republicans really are counting on their old white people to show up en mass on November 3rd in the middle of a pandemic…
They really haven’t thought all of this through, how many spots at all levels of the ballots they’re putting at risk, and all for one guy.
Speaking generally, a tie leaves the lower court’s ruling in place.
Thanks - I really didn’t have an answer. I didn’t know what would happen with a tie on two conflicting decisions.
I don’t think that many candidates for appellate clerkships have a lot of choice as to which judge they will clerk with - the jobs are extremely hard to get.
I’ll say this much: You never have to clerk for a judge (or Justice) whose record appalls you.
TPM does indeed commit to acts of journalism, every darned day! For that I am grateful. They dig where others won’t or can’t or don’t have the integrity to do so.