Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I really don't see how Bacon King's ruling had any more substance than a hackish personal opinion to benefit his party. #IllegitimateJudge #ImpeachBKNow!

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.

Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.

Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

Maybe....just maybe this change was made because requiring people to stay up until 1:00 AM on Sunday night to wait for election results is an awful idea. Before you say I'm a partisan hack, I supported this move even when I was a Fed, because frankly requiring people to stay up until 1:00 AM is bad. Also, that is completely unrelated to this case, and risks derailing this thread, if discussed further.

It is related to the point he made. I didn't ask for your input though.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.

Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

First of all, I think it's reasonably well documented that while I was running the vote dumps from the West Coast, I found the change to be inconvenient as I would have more time to do things smoothly when the polls closed at 10PM as opposed to 9.

But also, I think this actually makes my point? In the vote dumps after that change we had people who still missed the poll closing time because they were so used to the old rules. People are not constantly reading the law as it changes, and a voter who had read the government thread and found the text of the law most likely would have found the court case as well?

The Lincoln law that got passed was specifically aimed at disenfranchising new voters. Changing the time of the poll closing didn't actually stop anyone who was previously eligible to vote from being able to cast a ballot that was guaranteed to be counted. This situation is different.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

My apologies for the excessive hyperbole. Now the court is based.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Can we have an update on the grand jury proceedings? It's been a week.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

It's been over two weeks since the indictment has been issued. Is there a timetable on the next proceedings in the trial of Laki v Young Texan?