@servelan The problem is that the Court found the presidential election to be a federal procedure so this wasn't just a state regulating private action since the feds had not, but rather this was seen a state regulating the federal government itself.
I don't fully agree that a presidential election is a federal process, but given that it is, as the Court found, it's a little more understandable.
It would be like Texas proposing to regulate some practice in the EPA just because Congress had not passed a law related to that specific practice.
Or, this analogy is a little more complicated, but Texas proposing to regulate the federal border patrol. It would be disallowed for the same reason, and that is certainly current events at this point.
@volkris Doesn’t this reasoning contradict the rulings that have weakened the VRA and greenlighted gerrymandering in recent years (sorry INAL and don’t have case citations at hand but I think you know which ones I mean)? Seems states are free to run elections as they see fit but only when it suits the Right.
@eurobubba not at all.
This is consistent with the VRA in that both highlighted the lack of legal process. In both cases the Court pointed out that punishment was being doled out without a legal finding of guilt.
Gerrymandering is a little more complicated, but even that's similar: without a legal process for ruling, there's no legal process for blocking it.
