Yes, and yes. $:-)
If you want to be added, please FReepMail me.
Posted on 05/06/2022 5:02:30 PM PDT by Republicans 2016 2020
The ruling supporting the law, which DeSantis (R) signed during a Fox News appearance last year, means it is likely to be in effect for the midterm elections in November, when DeSantis will be up for reelection.
The law limits dropbox sites, makes it a crime to possess more than two ballots at a time, and prohibits “line warming” practices, such as offering water or chairs, for voters waiting outside polling places.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
They dared him and he did.
So far DeSantis is Barry Sanders. Barry, not Bernie.
Outstanding.
“The law limits dropbox sites, makes it a crime to possess more than two ballots at a time, and prohibits “line warming” practices, such as offering water or chairs, for voters waiting outside polling places.”
Surprised they didn’t mention the part of the bill that prohibits blacks from voting. Maybe they couldn’t find it.
Women and minorities hardest hit
Hopefully he doesn’t drop out at the peak of his career.
Didn’t the Marxist lower court judge shoot down most of the law and order FL to pre-clear any changes to the law with him?
If so, then this is a huge win.
The country needs DeSantis to be the Republican candidate for President in 2024.
Good news.
Yes, and yes. $:-)
In large part, the Court relied on recent Supreme Court case law that preliminary injunctions against state election laws should usually not be issued close to election time. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial judge's injunction was issued too close to the election. On that basis alone, the Court determined that the injunction should be stayed. That leaves the new Florida election law intact for this election year.
Tellingly, the Court of Appeals went on to assess the merits of the trial judge's lengthy opinion and conclusion that the new Florida election law reforms had improper racial motivations and effects. The Court of Appeals described this as "problematic" because it relied on long ago history instead of recent events.
In effect, the Court saw the trial judge as having gone off the rails by adopting as a principle that the racism of legislators long dead irreversibly taints current legislation. The facts of the case offer little basis for reversing that determination in a final disposition by the Court of Appeals.
More broadly, the opinion and decision by the Court of Appeals can be seen as a rejection of Critical Race Theory as applied by an Obama appointed judge. I hope that the Court of Appeals explores that point further in its final disposition of the case.
Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.