It's an interesting case. At first I thought it was an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights, except that the constitution allows Congress to regulate some aspects of the state's elections. But the "manner" of holding elections could be subjective. I'm sure it could be argued that registration by Congressional fiat in this specific case infringes on state sovereignty, although states have lost that case in somewhat different circumstances.
I think an easy out for Youngkin is to let them vote, BUT ensure that their votes, when received, are marked provisional and set apart, uncounted, for later adjudication and challenge. The Ds have long used the provisional ballot process for their own purposes, so it would be hard for them to fight it.
It would be great to see a discrete number of votes, say 66,000, where it is admitted that the votes are illegal, but the democrats are fighting to get them approved anyway. The hypocrisy would be blatant.
That's a great point regarding the provisional. I wonder though how easily that would be to implement, but it does seem that the legislature would have to legislate that for it to be an "out" for this situation.
My gut feeling is the court will find a compelling state interest.
Running the elections is usually an executive function (VA might be different, idk), so implementing only has logistical considerations. Shouldn't be that hard, just flag their voter ID instead of striking it, and separate the votes into a separate basket, to be left uncounted unless and until ordered to by a court. And when that happens, the circumstances and the totals will all be known.
Of course if the votes only show up electronically and not on paper, that's a separate issue.
But if the courts have common sense, you're right: the compelling state interest should rule the day. Let's see what happens.
It's an interesting case. At first I thought it was an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights, except that the constitution allows Congress to regulate some aspects of the state's elections. But the "manner" of holding elections could be subjective. I'm sure it could be argued that registration by Congressional fiat in this specific case infringes on state sovereignty, although states have lost that case in somewhat different circumstances.
I think an easy out for Youngkin is to let them vote, BUT ensure that their votes, when received, are marked provisional and set apart, uncounted, for later adjudication and challenge. The Ds have long used the provisional ballot process for their own purposes, so it would be hard for them to fight it.
It would be great to see a discrete number of votes, say 66,000, where it is admitted that the votes are illegal, but the democrats are fighting to get them approved anyway. The hypocrisy would be blatant.
That's a great point regarding the provisional. I wonder though how easily that would be to implement, but it does seem that the legislature would have to legislate that for it to be an "out" for this situation.
My gut feeling is the court will find a compelling state interest.
Running the elections is usually an executive function (VA might be different, idk), so implementing only has logistical considerations. Shouldn't be that hard, just flag their voter ID instead of striking it, and separate the votes into a separate basket, to be left uncounted unless and until ordered to by a court. And when that happens, the circumstances and the totals will all be known.
Of course if the votes only show up electronically and not on paper, that's a separate issue.
But if the courts have common sense, you're right: the compelling state interest should rule the day. Let's see what happens.