I disagree, the ruling only stated that legislation would have to be passed for a State to disqualify. It DOES NOT say that it would be required for a federal official to disqualify directly, which CAN mean, that a 14sec3 case brought directly to a federal court can prevail.
The Anderson case also wished to intercept ballots, a case that …
I disagree, the ruling only stated that legislation would have to be passed for a State to disqualify. It DOES NOT say that it would be required for a federal official to disqualify directly, which CAN mean, that a 14sec3 case brought directly to a federal court can prevail.
The Anderson case also wished to intercept ballots, a case that did not interfere with ballots, COULD STILL prevail.
Without overturning the precedent.
We need to stop asking what THIS court -would- do, and start asking it to actually do it, and see what happens.
I disagree, the ruling only stated that legislation would have to be passed for a State to disqualify. It DOES NOT say that it would be required for a federal official to disqualify directly, which CAN mean, that a 14sec3 case brought directly to a federal court can prevail.
The Anderson case also wished to intercept ballots, a case that did not interfere with ballots, COULD STILL prevail.
Without overturning the precedent.
We need to stop asking what THIS court -would- do, and start asking it to actually do it, and see what happens.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-617.html