• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    And now Republicans will put forth another bill that’s even worse and the courts will wait until after the 2024 election to reverse it.

    • mrpants@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. The Texas legislature meets in January of odd numbered years. They can call special sessions but they can’t make a worse law as it’ll be equally unenforceable and if they did there’d be lawsuits to get injunctions to stop the count until it’s resolved.

      There’s likely to be appeals of this ruling though.

      Anyways try to be more positive. This is a win.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is a penalty kick at best, not a win.

        Requiring Texas to get this shit pre-approved was the win, then SCOTUS said they weren’t currently discriminating and removed that. Texas immediately started right back up of course, since the preclearance was the only thing stopping them.

        Requiring everything to be relitigated over and over when there is a clear history of discrimination just enables the discrimination.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. The Texas legislature meets in January of odd numbered years. They can call special sessions but they can’t make a worse law as it’ll be equally unenforceable

        “Equally unenforceable” in this case means “enforceable until the courts get ahold of it after the election.”

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I saw the rest of the sentence.

            and if they did there’d be lawsuits to get injunctions to stop the count until it’s resolved.

            I also know what happened last time, and it wasn’t that.

  • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    We should use that terminology more often I think.

    X state broke civil rights. Kinda has a nice ring to it. Who would’ve guessed it’d be southern state

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What happens when Texas throws out the ballots anyway? You gonna force them to redo an entire election and take out the illegitimate politicians? Or is some director of some government office gonna get sued for a big fine and thats it? It remains to be seen if modern day US politics is even calable of removing someone once they’re elected, so how do you even enforce this?

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably ideally if they refuse is the national guard goes in and ensures a free and fair election, and people preventing it get arrested. Will that actually happen though? Idk.

  • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t worry, it’ll get enforced for the next Election anyway and then the Courts shall look the other way. That was the whole reason for preclearance.