Battle of Court Cases Results in Whiplash, Distrust

Posted by |

As if on cue, a federal judge Tuesday issued a preliminary partisan injunction allowing for universal balloting by mail in Texas.

The ruling was drafted by Samuel Frederick Biery Jr. a Bill Clinton appointee.

Following the order, Attorney General Paxton said the “opinion ignores the evidence and disregards well-established law.” The ruling was appealed to the 5th Circut Court of Appeals and almost immediately stayed.

These developments follow a temporary order issued Friday from the Texas Supreme Court in a separate suit that stayed a state court order that had the effect of expanding Texas’ limited balloting by mail to everyone in the state.

A hearing on that suit was held this morning via video conference, more on this later.

We’re dealing with two separate cases on two different tracks (state/federal) and there are several other cases filed and more coming as Democrats work to upend elections ahead of November.

The chaos is intentional.

The state and federal cases rely on the false premise that in-person voting will be disproportionately more dangerous in 2020 than it ever was, has been or will be. It’s not.

This week the final verdict was delivered on Wisconsin’s in-person voting during the March primary. There was no spike in cases associated with voting, and a maximum of 71 individuals who voted in person or worked the polls came down with the virus. 

There’s no information suggesting that these 71 cases actually came from the election, the real range is 0 to 71. As few as 0 voters or poll workers in Wisconsin came down with the virus.

Aside from the lack of need, the Biery ruling (federal) was intellectually disingenuous in its suggestion that a lack of fraud prosecutions is a because there isn’t fraud taking place in Texas elections.

While limited resources in both the public and private sectors necessitate only a handful of cases being pursued on an annual basis all voter fraud results in a voter being disenfranchised, one case is one too many.

What’s more, contrary to the court’s opinion, Texas isn’t restricting the use of mail-in balloting, it’s carrying on with the current and longstanding regime of mail-in voting.

Supreme Courts at both the state and federal levels will have to ack as a backstop to the from the bench legislating that Biery and his cohorts in the state courts are embarking on in the midst government-imposed crisis.

Pin It on Pinterest