“Critics were clearly unaware of the legitimacy of my action and simply expressed prejudiced political views,” Abbott wrote in a holiday tweet.
Background: Civil rights groups and Democrats have complained that the county location rule, which Abbott abruptly imposed two weeks ago, unfairly burdens large urban districts and has the potential to deter voters and create health risks.
However, Duncan said the rule would have the most “de minimis” impact on voters.
“One strains to see how this burdens the vote at all,” wrote Duncan, who was joined by Judges Don Willett and James Ho. All three judges have been appointed to President Donald Trump.
“The Oct. 1
The 20-page judge’s opinion also noted that Texas law usually allows manual delivery of absentee ballots only on election day, but voters will have 40 days to do so this year and will retain the right to send ballots by mail. .
In issuing the order last week, Austin District Court Judge Robert Pittman said
Abbott’s “personality” of a July order threatens to deprive people with disabilities and the elderly of the right to vote, who will now have to travel longer distances to drop their ballots. The judge also said that delays in postal services and changes cast doubt on whether the postal ballots would arrive on time to be counted.
What next: Civil rights groups and minority lawmakers who have filed a federal lawsuit against Abbott’s order could ask the full appellate court to address the issue, but their appeal is unlikely to find intent before the Conservative court.
Plaintiffs can also seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, but that court was stenographed following the death of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meaning that those who oppose Abbott’s order are likely to have to win the votes of two conservative judges in addition to the three courts remained liberals.
One of the judges in the fifth round, Ho, added a provocatively agreed opinion alleging that Abbott was violating Texas law and perhaps the US constitution by unilaterally changing Texas election procedures without the state legislature acting. However, the judge said that in this case only the mistake of the federal district judge could be taken into account.
“It is reminiscent of the saying that sometimes only the person who throws the second blow is caught,” Ho wrote.
Ho also appears to have deliberately spurred the cases that Republican election lawyers are prosecuting in various states, arguing that virus-related changes to the election process issued by governors and secretaries of state are unconstitutional because they were not directly authorized by state legislators. The Supreme Court faces two such challenges ahead of the Pennsylvania ballot deadlines.
“The constitution oversees federal election laws in the state legislature, and with good reason – we expect people’s voices to ring out loud and effective there,” Ho wrote, whose coincidence also raises concerns about absenteeism fraud.