Our state played by the rules
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff, did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.
Our state played by the rules
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff, did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.
Our state played by the rules
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff, did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.
Our state played by the rules
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff, did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.
Our state played by the rules
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.
Our state played by the rules
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.
Our state played by the rules
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.