I read the article AND the ruling. The article misstates the ruling, which just denied the Secretary of State’s request to dismiss the case out of the hand.
The ruling is the first paragraph, the part above the section heading "Facts and Procedural History". It says that the motion to dismiss is denied because there is a viable and ripe claim for relief. Everything below that (except for the order on page 5 where the judge says we'll consider next steps in the case on Sep 19) is stuff that has yet to be settled when the case goes to trial.
I read the article AND the ruling. The article misstates the ruling, which just denied the Secretary of State’s request to dismiss the case out of the hand.
The ruling is the first paragraph, the part above the section heading "Facts and Procedural History". It says that the motion to dismiss is denied because there is a viable and ripe claim for relief. Everything below that (except for the order on page 5 where the judge says we'll consider next steps in the case on Sep 19) is stuff that has yet to be settled when the case goes to trial.