Since Shelby v Holder they are restrained in where they can monitor - they need a court order to do so and can’t follow old guidelines that let them monitor in “historically racist” locations like Texas.
If memory serves, Shelby was just about the ability of the DOJ to require states from the former Confederacy to get DOJ’s approval before making any changes to their election laws, where this is about DOJ’s ability to monitor any state’s actual implementation of their election laws
Either way, illegitimate decision from an illegitimate court that wouldn’t have any precedential value if we lived in a decent country, but yeah, back in the one we actually live in who knows what is and isn’t legal anymore.
e; DOJs? I’m pretty sure there’s just the one, autocorrect
If memory serves, Shelby was just about the ability of the DOJ to require states from the former Confederacy to get DOJ’s approval before making any changes to their election laws, where this is about DOJ’s ability to monitor any state’s actual implementation of their election laws
This is quite incorrect. I would read the link I provided.
…it
…it probably is.
Since Shelby v Holder they are restrained in where they can monitor - they need a court order to do so and can’t follow old guidelines that let them monitor in “historically racist” locations like Texas.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-federal-observers-and-election-monitoring
If memory serves, Shelby was just about the ability of the DOJ to require states from the former Confederacy to get DOJ’s approval before making any changes to their election laws, where this is about DOJ’s ability to monitor any state’s actual implementation of their election laws
Either way, illegitimate decision from an illegitimate court that wouldn’t have any precedential value if we lived in a decent country, but yeah, back in the one we actually live in who knows what is and isn’t legal anymore.
e; DOJs? I’m pretty sure there’s just the one, autocorrect
This is quite incorrect. I would read the link I provided.