US judge rejects lawsuit seeking Texas voting changes during pandemic

[TexasTowelie]

Source: Austin American-Statesman

A federal judge in San Antonio dismissed a lawsuit seeking greater accommodations for voter safety during the coronavirus pandemic.

The lawsuit, filed by civil rights groups and two voters, sought a court order requiring face masks at polls and other changes to alleviate crowding, including more polling locations, additional voting machines and an extra week of early voting on top of the six additional days already ordered by Gov. Greg Abbott.

The lawsuit also sought approval for temporary early voting locations with flexible hours, which a new state law bans.

Although the requests “do not appear unreasonable and can easily be implemented” to improve safety, U.S. District Judge Jason Pulliam said the courts lack authority to order the changes.

Read more: https://www.statesman.com/news/20200908/us-judge-rejects-lawsuit-seeking-texas-voting-changes-during-pandemic

---

The judge is a Trump appointee.

[Coleman]

1. State has sole authority concerning elections

The fact the judge is a trump appointee is irrelevant. He actually made the correct ruling. If there is no violation of the Constitution then Federal court is the wrong place. The suit belongs in state courts.

[olegramps]

2. The State control of Federal Elections was a serious blunder.

Unfortunately, the framers of the Constitution were compelled to make significant concessions to obtain its ratification. The most serious was the accommodation of the abomination of slavery. States Rights have been the source of numerous abuses by the legislators. It is my contention that Federal elections should be controlled by the Federal government. One example among many is the abuse of states of the voting rights, especially in the South that required federal enacted laws to stop the abuses. It required intervention by the federal government for correction which has come under assault by the Republicans. One of the most significant results of the election of Trump and the actions taken by Republican controlled Senate was the blocking of virtually every Obama judgeship nomination and the resulting massive flooding of the courts with extreme rightwing judges by the Republican controlled White House and Senate. This is a problem that will plague us for years to come. Challenges to legislation to designed to deny equal access to the right to vote is a prime example that have meet certain death in biased Republican controlled courts.

[csziggy]

3. Yes, even though the Constitution requires state control, this is not consistent

With the Supreme Court in Bush V Gore - which of course was specifically not allowed to be used as precedent in any other case. One of the reasons cited for stopping the Florida recount was the inconsistent methods used in the different counties.

Heck, the voting methods were and still are inconsistent in the 67 Florida counties, which means that any count, much less recount, will use different methods! No wonder the Supreme Court restricted the use of their illogical ruling from being used in any other case. Every election ever held in this country could be invalidated.

If Bush v Gore could be used as a precedent, it could be held to invalidate the state control of federal elections since voting methods, counting methods, and recounting methods vary among and in the different states.

[olegramps]

4. Agreed. This example is amplified time and time again by not the letter of the law but politics.

[Igel]

5. Inconsistent standards.