- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
U.S. judges have denied requests from the Republican-led states of Missouri and Texas to block the federal government from sending lawyers to their states on Election Day to monitor compliance with federal voting rights laws.
Both states are among the 27 that the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) said it would send staff out to monitor at voting locations, as it has done regularly during national elections.
Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ordered the DOJ early on Tuesday to confirm that “no observers” would be present in polling locations in Texas but denied issuing the restraining order the state had requested.
“The Court cannot issue a temporary restraining order without further clarification on the distinction between ‘monitoring’ and ‘observing’ on the eve of a consequential election,” Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, said in the ruling.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had earlier said that sending monitors “infringes on States’ constitutional authority to run free and fair elections.”
You must log in or register to comment.
“You’re infringing on our authority to run free and fair elections by trying to send lawyers to help ensure that we run free and fair elections!”
Ken PaxtonNo surprise this is the same maggot who tried to get “the pill” banned
Unlike every other judicial district in America, Northern Texas does not assign cases to any district judge at random. Instead, they limit assignments to judges who are within the division the case was filed in.
Since he’s the only judge in the Amarillo Division, you can guarantee a hyperpartison super-conservative judge if you file there.
Sounds awful familiar to Trump’s Pseudo Lawyer Eileen Cannon.
Well, in addition to his attempt to ban milfepristone, he also ruled that the Biden administration could not enact protections for transgender employees.
Why? Well, sure, Title VII protects transgender individuals from discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it protects any of their conduct, actions, or anything else. So you can’t fire someone for being trans, but the moment they “act” trans, present as the opposite gender, ask for you to use their pronouns, etc., it’s completely different and they totally can be fired.
He’s constantly choosing to selectively ignore parts of the legal code so it fits his view better. He believes he has the power to redefine words - once demanding that the lawyers on both sides use the term “unborn baby” instead of “fetus” because he says fetus is a made-up word and a liberal plot.
He also tried to overturn the ACA… In 2022.
We’re seriously arguing the difference between observing and monitoring?? Fuck I hate the world.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had earlier said that sending monitors “infringes on States’ constitutional authority to run free and fair elections.”
The monitors are literally because the state is shit at running free and fair elections. Yes, states are responsible for operating elections. The state says “Here’s how we’re going to do that,” and federal monitors may be sent to determine whether what’s actually happening is substantially aligned with what the state said would happen.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-federal-observers-and-election-monitoring
This is allowed by the Voting Rights Act, even though Shelby County v. Holder fucked it up.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was probably quoted as saying “Fuck y’all, I’ve proven I’m above the law several times.”
These are the same people that kept asking what do we have to worry about if we have nothing to hide during all the Patriot Act renewals and other monitoring and privacy violating bills, right? I just want to make sure… 🤨
Send them anyway. This judge in particular needs to have a ripe pineapple shoved up his ass.
He did the right thing in this case though? I think you’re thinking of the other one from yesterday. Arizona?
The judge is only making this ruling because he made the Feds promise NOT to send monitors. The states won here, the bitch ass judge just doesn’t want to set a precedent (directly in contradiction with the law).
We need better escalation triggers and mechanisms for judicial oversight and removal from the bench. We have a major judiciary problem and it is enabling rot in every state in the Union.
“I’m not going to issue a restraining order but only if you make a legally binding promise not to do it anyway.”
This feels like the court and DOJ working together to not make this look like what it is because neither of them wanted “federal civil rights protections thrown out by unelected judge in favor of state government bigots doing whatever the fuck they want” headlines
