First North Carolina, now Texas; I hope this is the start of an election integrity counter-trend.
Although the latter is not quite to that optimistic level:
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an emergency appeal to stop Texas from enforcing its challenged voter ID law. But the court said it could revisit the issue as the November elections approach.
The law has been in effect for recent elections, even after a trial judge struck it down in 2014 and an appellate panel found last year that the law had a "discriminatory effect" on minority voters.
Which is tantamount to saying that they can't read, pat their tummies and chew bubble gum at the same time, or tie their shoelaces without ensnarling them together. A racist slur, in other words. That's how I would take such elitist presumptuousness if I were a member of one of those maligned demographics.
The challengers in the ongoing lawsuit argue there is no reason to allow the requirement to show picture identification at the polls to remain in place.
Other than that their frivolous and insulting litigation has not reached a favorable conclusion yet. They don't award the Lombardi trophy at mid-season, after all. Or would the Texas plaintiffs like to review Judge Thomas Schroeder's ruling for the resoundingly valid reasons why? I'm guessing probably not.
Ditto Olympus....for now.
But justices rejected the plea in a brief order Friday. The full New Orleans-based [and constitutionalist-leaning] appeals court will hold a new hearing on the Texas law in May.
The high court said that it is aware of "the time constraints the parties confront in light of the scheduled elections." If the full appeals court has not issued a ruling by July 20th, the court said, it would entertain a renewed emergency appeal over the voter ID law. [emphasis added]
And probably decide the same as they did today, since they would almost certainly deadlock on this case as well, effectively affirming the likely Fifth Circuit decision. Besides, if Trumpageddon reaches such proportions that the Lone Star State becomes flippable, voter fraud really isn't going to play any relevant factor in that outcome, now is it?
Exit question: Let's just say, purely for the sake of argument, that a Trump-Rodham race was close, and it played out identically to the Bush-Gore 2000 election only with Hillary seventeen hundred votes or so on top in Florida. Most of us remember the surreality of the post-election campaign where Al Gore tried to "count" and sue his way to victory in a bloodless coup attempt, a civic atrocity that became the model and standard for all the successfully stolen elections the Dems have collected since then. In the exact same situation, with The Donald seventeen hundred votes short of the presidency, would Trumplicans support his following Fat Albert's horrible example, or would they want him to graciously concede, how ever bitter the loss?
Yeah, that was a rhetorical question.