Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii
It was the kind of mixed decision that can sometimes baffle lay readers and, in this instance, maybe even lawyers and judges, too, because the two parts of the ruling did not seem to be reconciled easily. Dude, come on. You know in US this equals to cluster fuck. - Millions will be voting who should not be voting. Fake addresses, fake names...either way this country is truly doomed.
|
Scalia wrote the majority opinion, that in itself tells you a lot. The ruling essentially boils down to the concept that a State can not enact voter laws in conflict with federal voting laws. A state CAN request to have things added, and if the federal government refuses or fails to answer, the state can then sue in court to claim what they want added is essential.
This sets up a mechanism where States can't act first and request permission after the fact, they must get permission before adding voter restrictions - from either Congress or the court system. It's a fairly simple resolution and not a particularly bad one. States come up with requests, congress must approve or deny them (and can't stall forever), then if a serious dispute arises the court system handles the conflict. Meanwhile, nobody except Congress can ever add any kind of restriction without getting permission before implementing it.