[SolidSupplySide]

This ruling has the effect of changing election law

No it doesn't. The previous ruling changed the law when it told Jefferson County to count all provisional ballots despite the fact that reasons for voting provisionally were unclear. This ruling merely applies the same treatment to provisional voters in Adams and Arapahoe counties.

This case is so similar to Bush v. Gore it surprises me that people don't see it. SCOTUS did not review the fact that the FLASC changed election law. SCOTUS merely stated that everyone should be treated the same under the new law created from the Florida bench.

[Badger1]

The previous ruling changed the law when it told Jefferson County to count all provisional ballots despite the fact that reasons for voting provisionally were unclear.

Both rulings had the effect of changing the election law. The Secretary of State's ruling was an attempt to apply the law as closely as possible to how it was written. The Judges ruling was an attempt to apply the law as the Supreme Court interpreted it in Bush v. Gore. In this case, the only way to apply the law exactly as written would have been to throw out all the provisional ballots in Jefferson County, which is obviously unfair. Again, I have no problem with the Judges ruling, but you have to admit that making the counties who followed the law as written now go back and count ballots that violate the law as written is a de-facto change in the law. In my opinion, it was probably the right thing to do in this case, but the law needs to be clarified so that this type of thing does not happen again.