Texas court: Virus fear alone not enough for mail balloting
Law Firm News
Today's Legal News Bookmark This Website
Texas court: Virus fear alone not enough for mail balloting
Class Action Law Suits | 2020/05/27 11:42
Texas officials fighting to block widespread mail-in voting during the pandemic claimed victory after the state's highest court ruled Wednesday that a lack of immunity to the coronavirus doesn't qualify someone to cast a ballot by mail.

The decision was unanimous by the Texas Supreme Court, which is stocked with nine Republican justices, including one who revealed last week that she had tested positive for COVID-19. Texas generally limits mail balloting only to voters who are over 65 years old or have a disability.

Justice Eva Guzman wrote the court was unified in the conclusion that “fear of contracting a disease is not a physical condition."

The Texas Democratic Party blasted the decision, and moved its hopes to a similar challenge playing out in federal court. But not all saw the decision as a total loss: the top elections lawyer in Houston, Harris County attorney Douglas Ray, said he believed the ruling leaves room for each voter to decide themselves whether they qualify, and gives clerks basically no ability to second-guess the reasoning.

In Texas, voters do not have to describe their disability when requesting a mail-in ballot.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who earlier this month lost lower court decisions that would have expanded mail-in ballots to all of the state's 16 million registered voters, has argued that fear of getting the virus alone doesn't qualify as a disability. He applauded the court for keeping the status quo with just weeks until the state is set to hold primary runoff elections in July.


[PREV] [1] ..[395][396][397][398][399][400][401][402][403].. [2655] [NEXT]
All
Antitrust Issues
Legal News Update
Legal Business Articles
Class Action Law Suits
Corporate Governance Law
Court News Feed
Criminal Law Articles
Elder Law Issues
Entertainment Law
Family Law Issues
Health Care Law
Legal Rights
Immigration Law
Legal Insurance
Intellectual Property Law
Labor & Employment Law
Legal Center
Legal Professional Business
Legal Internet Marketing
Litigation Law
Medical Malpractice Issues
Mergers & Acquisitions Matters
People on the News
Political and Legal Trends
Political Insight
Legal Focuses
Real Estate Law
Security Trends
Tax Information
Tort Reform Guidelines
Venture Business Articles
World Business Today
Law Firm Highlights
Attorney Info
Environmental Issues
Careers in the Legal Sector
Civil Rights Updates
DUI Info
Military Law Practices
Patent Law Information
Legal Consumer Rights
International Legal News
Maritime Law
Legal Outlook & Information
Law School Articles
TikTok content creators sue ..
Abortion consumes US politic..
Trump faces prospect of addi..
Retrial of Harvey Weinstein ..
Starbucks appears likely to ..
Supreme Court will weigh ban..
Judge in Trump case orders m..
Court makes it easier to sue..
Top Europe rights court cond..
Elon Musk will be investigat..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
Chicago Work Accident Lawyer
Chicago Workplace Injury Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Indianapolis Personal Injury Law Firm
Indiana, IN Personal Injury Attorneys
www.williamspiatt.com
San Francisco Family Law Lawyer
San Jose Family Law Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
 
 
© www.timelegalnews.com. All rights reserved.

The content and articles provided on this website have been prepared by Time Legal News as an informational source and service to the legal internet community and is not to act or constitute as any type of legal advice or consultation with an actual licensed attorney or legal professional in any case or circumstance.Time Legal News blog posts and comments are available for educational purposes only and should not be used to determine or valuate a legal situation or matter. Affordable Law Firm Website Design