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.

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 sombre 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.