[SolidSupplySide]

"Equal protection applies to the manner of exercise of the right to vote, and a violation of equal protection of the laws exists where there has been arbitrary and disparate treatment of members of a jurisdiction's electorate."

Absolutely correct application of the law to this case.

IMHO, you can identify partisans by comparing this case to Bush v. Gore:

If you think Bush v. Gore was correct and this one is wrong, your goal is raw power for Republican candidates.

If you think Bush v. Gore was incorrect, but this one is correct, you support raw power for the Democrats.

If you think both cases were decided correctly, you support the Constitution.

I don't know of anyone who thinks both cases were decided incorrectly.

[Badger1]

I don’t have a problem with the ruling made in this case, other than the law states that provisional ballots have to be marked with a reason why the voter is voting provisionally. Jefferson County did not include this check off box on its ballots, and the other two counties did. Jefferson County counted all provisional ballots, and the other two counties disqualified ballots that did meet the requirements of the law. This ruling has the effect of changing election law after the election, but it does provide for equal protection for all the voters between the three counties in question. Colorado needs to change its election law so that in the future, all counties have the provisional ballot applications so this does not occur again.

[alwaysconservative]

"If you think both cases were decided correctly, you support the Constitution."

Yay! I passed the test! But I also can't say that I'm not pleased that the Republican looks likely to win anyway. I wonder what "the media" will make of this decision if the Republican maintains his lead.