SCOTUS is not going to like this paragraph (page 23): "to the extent Texas refers to “millions” of absent voter ballots being disseminated unlawfully, setting aside the fact that the Secretary’s processes are not unlawful, there is no way of knowing how many voters used the Secretary’s mailing to obtain a ballot absent physically examining every application in the possession of every clerk in the state. With respect to the online platform, a query could be performed to determine how many voters used the platform to request an absent voter ballot. But in either case, there is no way to associate the voter who used a particular application with his or her ballot after it is voted.
SCOTUS is not going to like this paragraph (page 23): "to the extent Texas refers to “millions” of absent voter ballots being disseminated unlawfully, setting aside the fact that the Secretary’s processes are not unlawful, there is no way of knowing how many voters used the Secretary’s mailing to obtain a ballot absent physically examining every application in the possession of every clerk in the state. With respect to the online platform, a query could be performed to determine how many voters used the platform to request an absent voter ballot. But in either case, there is no way to associate the voter who used a particular application with his or her ballot after it is voted.
So they’re arguing against themselves and proving plaintiffs point, essentially. Good lord. Amateur hour over there.