My claim is:when a state burdens voters, it shd have legitimate, provable reason for doing so http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/ …https://twitter.com/MichaelMcGough3/status/621368343677808640 …
-
@jadler1969@MichaelMcGough3 but certainly some voters are burdened by lack of alternatives (e.g., those out of state on election day) (3)
@jadler1969 @MichaelMcGough3 and state should have good reason for not offering either in person or absentee early voting as alternative (4)
-
-
@rickhasen@MichaelMcGough3 might agree as policy matter; don't see how Const or VRA requires that. -
@jadler1969@MichaelMcGough3 claim is constitutional one about relieving burdens on voters absent important state reasons -
@jadler1969@MichaelMcGough3 and it is claim that would require rethinking jurisprudence, as I indicate in piece. Not the current framework -
@jadler1969@MichaelMcGough3 It puts a thumb on the scale favoring voters' ability to cast a ballot which will be counted -
@rickhasen@MichaelMcGough3 I think that's a better soundness than it is meaningful & justiciable standard -
@rickhasen@MichaelMcGough3 oops. Yes. At airport on phone. -
@jadler1969@MichaelMcGough3 no worries. Time for me to get back to real writing anyway.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.