Well I agree with your analysis, you are forgetting that the final decision will rest with Chief Injustice on the Supreme Court John Roberts and his set of 4 junior injustices.
That is I would not be surprised if the Injustices grant Trump an injunction against the law until after the election.
Yeah, but in the midst of all this are the folks who are about to be evicted since the moratorium has expired. I know that, in many places, folks can still vote, but will they when they have no roof over their heads?
Trump is assuming Republicans would swim through a Chuck E Cheese ball pit to vote for him, whereas Democrats take the virus seriously, care about their health and that of others, and would prefer to vote by mail.
If they have mail-in ballots, they’ll be more likely to. Also, IIRC there are rules that say you can still vote in federal elections even if you don’t have a current fixed address, it’s just the local ones where they can play games with what precinct you live in. But I could be out of date on that.
They would have to twist themselves in knots to find a reason for the injunction. I briefly scanned the complaint, and it seems that the heart of it is that election officials would be able to “accept” and count ballots after election day.
Well, that’s what they do here in WA, and the ballots are valid as long as they’re postmarked on election day. Doesn’t the new Nevada plan require ballots to be postmarked by election day also? I haven’t looked at it.
He’ll stomp and complain and sue if Biden gets to 270, but he can’t actually invalidate. Right now so many states are veering against him, he’d need 5-plus states’ courts to agree with his legal arguments…
That sounds about right, though not sure if its a federal rule or a state one. I do know that in Florida, homeless people can register and vote. The main requirement there is that they have access to receive mail at some address, be it a shelter, a family member or friend’s address, etc.
The points they are citing, are similar to what many other states do. The “election day” argument is pure nonsense, as the requirement still exists that all ballots be post marked by election day. The 14th Amendment argument is likewise pretty flawed IMO; they are trying to argue the absurdists POV that if every voter doesn’t receive PRECISELY the same voting experience, then its unconstitutional. Think along these lines “Did a blonde lady give you your ballot? AHA!! A grey haired man give someone else their ballot!! Your honor, clearly these two voters were not treated equally”
Yeah, both issues should be DOA. Notably, every one of the active federal district court judges in Las Vegas are Obama appointees. Among the seniors, there are one each from Reagan, Clinton, and GWB. No Trumpers anywhere to be found.
You may be right, but I have hopes. There’s really no there there, and the supremes aren’t in session. So they’d have to step in and short-circuit the entire appellate process while figuring out a reason that it’s OK for them to intervene within weeks of an election, likely after ballots have been sent out. That would pretty much be asking for 13 justices.