@rickhasen Could it be argued that the original preliminary injunction violated the status quo (Purcell) itself, by coming the day before polls open and requiring poll workers to reset their machines at last minute etc?
I don't think so, because this is about the back end, not the rules that apply to voters.
-
-
and in any case that's not a rule binding on state courts, and not even officially a "rule" of the U.S. Supreme Court. Just something I've teased out from what they've done.
-
Just thinking (giving benefit of doubt) that they could be acting on same *perceived* principle of erring on side of not upsetting election status at last minute. (I could make the arg that going into Admin setup and mucking w features last minute cold cause probs)
-
"Benefit of the doubt?" Due process required notice to the plaintiffs and opportunity to be heard + an explanation by the AL Supreme Court as to the reason for issuing a stay.
-
"Benefit of the doubt" as to non-nefarious explanations for the motion. Not referring to whether it was carried out properly by Court, etc.
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.