[mononymous]

Appreciate your response.

I guess I was under the misguided notion that since SCOTUS stepped in for FL 2000 (a single state, why a federal issue?), under the 14th (”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...”) that this would be entirely applicable in a situation where we have multiple states (thus, a federal issue?) in question. If FL could not guarantee its citizens equal protection in 2000, why does this not apply now across state lines? Furthermore, it’d seem that voting by absentee ballots vs. mail-ins vs. in person with varying degrees of authentication (to the extent any exists) across a single state would be violations of the 14th.

Just saying; thanks again.

[Dr. Franklin]

If FL could not guarantee its citizens equal protection in 2000, why does this not apply now across state lines

That's a really good question. To me that lack of any good answers to that from the courts, and SCOTUS sitting this out so far leads to the question, was the Rhenquist Court politically active for Bush, or is the Roberts Court politically hostile to Trump? The only possible distinction is that in 2000 Bush brought the suit himself, while now Trump has relied on his campaign company. That leads to a legal issue about standing which the circuits split on, and needs SCOTUS to resolve, and they are taking their time on that..