• Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    17 days ago

    the Supreme Court didn’t explain the reason for the decision

    What could they say, though? “We know you’re breaking federal law and all that but carry on. Those votes won’t suppress themselves.”

    • One thing to remember is that the bar for the SC to explain themselves is low. It’s probably much higher in the court of public opinion than it is in … you know, actual courts. (Since the lower courts have to follow their words and not the other way around.) When they do speak, there’s very little that can stop them.

      They could have said something like, “We find that the mere option of same-day voting registration being available is enough to satisfy the intent of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act and thus the 90-day rule should be treated as not being violated.”

      That would have opened the doors for Republican States to purge their rolls the same way as Virginia has, while enacting same-day voting registration on paper (thus providing the option) - but combined with ridiculous ID rules that make it next to impossible to actually do so.

      Or worse, they could have said “We find that a non citizen voting is in fact unconstitutional, and for that reason we overturn this part of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act - the 90 day rule may no longer be enforced.”