Just finished reading it. This thing is a work of pure brilliance and eviscerates the defendants' arguments.
Not acting incentivizes further lawlessness and will drive honest voters from the polls: why should anyone vote if a few urban centers will manufacture an unlawful and insuperable vote margin?
Does the use of this language also mean that in this supreme court case the plaintiff intends to bring to the court evidence of voter fraud in these urban centers?
Just finished reading it. This thing is a work of pure brilliance and eviscerates the defendants' arguments.
Does the use of this language also mean that in this supreme court case the plaintiff intends to bring to the court evidence of voter fraud in these urban centers?