Nate Cohn

@Nate_Cohn ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked July 1, 2021

Created

Thu Jul 01 14:32:47 +0000 2021

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

1) The court cares about the size of the effect. It says voters should deal with the 'usual burdens of voting,' and a big effect on turnout appears to be one way to evaluate whether it's an unusual burden; Or in short, if 99% of people get to the right precinct, nbd if 1% don't — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 1, 2021

Preceded By

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Some believed SCOTUS might take this opportunity to eviscerate Section 2. That didn't happen. But the courts reasoning offers some lessons about what kinds of restrictions on the time, place and manner of elections may or may not be legal going forward — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 1, 2021

Followed By

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Same story on whether there's a disparity on the effect by race. Some disparity is inevitable with any regulation, the court claims, so the size of the disparity may help inform whether it's bad. It rejects disparate impact as a test, alone. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 1, 2021