Universal Vote by Mail ordered in Texas for the remainder of the pandemic

[SixFoot]

Can higher courts strike it down?

This ruling gets a meme.

[CanadianJudo]

@Safiel

@Snow96

@Safiel

the Judge declared that any person NOT immune to COVID-19 has a legal disability that entitles them to an absentee ballot.

What law is he using to determine thatse not imune to COVID-19 are legally (as in stated in a law) they are disabled?

Under the ADA, disability, and impairment leading thereto, is very broadly defined. In reality, he could lean on the ADA itself as justification for his decision.

what is and isn’t a disability is mostly up to personal doctors.

[WuWei]

@Safiel

Pretty nifty move by the Judge actually.

Is that his job?

[WuWei]

@Safiel

The Judge UPHELD Texas Statute in every respect.

It is just the executive branch actions in Texas that were enjoined.

I be gettin’ me some of that good parking tomorrow.

[CanadianJudo]

@WuWei

@Safiel

The Judge UPHELD Texas Statute in every respect.

It is just the executive branch actions in Texas that were enjoined.

I be gettin’ me some of that good parking tomorrow.

You only get parking spot if your disability is based on mobility there is a long list of disability that don’t get the magic pass.

[WuWei]

@Camp

Using absentee ballots for anyone concerned with CV19 is reasonable.

I don’t equate this with vote by mail only.

They are the same thing.

[zantax]

Won’t stand, the end.

[WildRose]

It won’t stand if challenged. The constitution is quite clear as to the states being responsible for the conduct of elections.

[DougBH]

I just don’t find it nifty at all, for a person with common sense. But it fits in with his extreme flowerly language that he supposes will impress some (and apparently it does)

“The court finds the Grimm Reapers scepter of pandemic disease and death…”

And starting out with that declaration of independence garbage? Really? Nifty?

I find it more embarrassing than nifty.

[DougBH]

@Camp

Using absentee ballots for anyone concerned with CV19 is reasonable.

I don’t equate this with vote by mail only.

I find it reasonable too. I don’t find it written into the declaration of independence, or the constitution. The guy should have just said “I like the idea of absentee ballots and I’m a Federal Judge and the next thing to God and I can do what I want”. At least that would be honest.

[kermode]

@DougBH

I find it reasonable too. I don’t find it written into the declaration of independence, or the constitution. The guy should have just said “I like the idea of absentee ballots and I’m a Federal Judge and the next thing to God and I can do what I want”. At least that would be honest.

So instead of just disagreeing with him on the reasons for his ruling you accuse him of lying.
I didn’t think the majority was lying when the SC ruled on Citizens United.

But no worries. Trump will win Texas. That’s all that really matters.

[Safiel]

@DougBH

I just don’t find it nifty at all, for a person with common sense. But it fits in with his extreme flowerly language that he supposes will empress some (and apparently it does)

“The court finds the Grimm Reapers scepter of pandemic disease and death…”

And starting out with that declaration of independence garbage? Really? Nifty?

I find it more embarrassing than nifty.

As an aside, Biery does go a little over the top with his writing style, but in the end, it really effects nothing. And the “meat” of his decision lies in the extended Appendixes to his decision, which contain his “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law” both written in straight forward, to the point language.

In any event, that was NOT what I was referring to as nifty. Rather, it was his straight forward use of the Texas Statutes against the defendants.

The United States District Court has proper jurisdiction over this case since it raises a matter of voting rights, an issue which is patently Federal in nature. The Plaintiffs in the case invoke the 1st, 14th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution.

The 26th Amendment argument is interesting and invites a textualist reconsideration of the 26th Amendment. While the purpose of the 26th Amendment was clearly to lower the nationwide voting age from 21 to 18, what if it is read from a textualist perspective outside of its intended purpose.

Amendment 26:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But what Texas is doing by statute and by executive rule is abridging voting rights on account of age. Voters 65 and older can freely exercise vote by mail. Voters 64 years, 364 days and younger can only vote by mail if they have an “approved” disability. That is a plausible, textualist interpretation of the 26th Amendment.

The 26th Amendment has not been litigated in any major way since 1977. Almost all 26th Amendment lawsuits were filed and decided between ratification in 1971 and 1977. Since then, the 26th Amendment has faded into a relatively obscure jurisdictional quadrant. However, in the last several years it has been raised in response to a number of issues, particularly youth related, but in this instance much more broadly.

I think it can clearly be read to prevent treating groups of voters preferentially on account of age.

And I think it will be some time before the Supreme Court steps in on this. This issue will likely have to be raised and resolved in several circuits before the Supreme Court will act, if they choose to act at all.

[WildRose]

It won’t stand up to appeal.

[DougBH]

@kermode

@DougBH

I find it reasonable too. I don’t find it written into the declaration of independence, or the constitution. The guy should have just said “I like the idea of absentee ballots and I’m a Federal Judge and the next thing to God and I can do what I want”. At least that would be honest.

So instead of just disagreeing with him on the reasons for his ruling you accuse him of lying.
I didn’t think the majority was lying when the SC ruled on Citizens United.

But no worries. Trump will win Texas. That’s all that really matters.

If you say so. As I said, I find it reasonable just not in the Constitution. Does everything have to do with Trump? Weird.

[DougBH]

He doesn’t care about age discrimination. If that were the issue, he would have just said you can’t allow special treatment of people 65 and older…fix it one way or the other. He likes absentee ballots.

[FloridaYankee]

Sure is a lot of crying whenever it becomes easier to vote.

[Ben_Natuf]

great, then anyone who can prove they don’t have antibodies can get a ballot!

this ruling is stupid, the judge has declared you are disabled if you’re healthy and haven’t been sick.

[Ben_Natuf]

@CanadianJudo

having high anxiety is a disability according to ADA.

uh… no. being diagnosed with anxiety disorder can be IF it impairs your ability to work.

[Nemesis]

@Ben_Natuf

@CanadianJudo

having high anxiety is a disability according to ADA.

uh… no. being diagnosed with anxiety disorder can be IF it impairs your ability to work.

So when we are all done with the word parsing it is still a disability.

[Ben_Natuf]

no, having high anxiety is not a disability. having anxiety disorder can be.

the first describes your emotional state, its temporary. the second describes a neurological disorder, its permanent.