Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @BOENYC: The NYC Board of Elections will release the RCV round by round elimination report 2 by 7:30 pm tonight. We thank you for your p… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @Taniel: in 8 hours, this tweet has gone from tone-deaf to misleading to iconic https://t.co/Vn9bag5unM — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

https://t.co/6EXh9h2TpX — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Is there a reason why the betting markets flipped from 2-1 for Garcia to 2-1 for Adams? https://t.co/Ah98Yq9f6k — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

If you're still waiting for the brunch specials, here are some quick thoughts on what kind of voting restrictions are more or less vulnerable to legal challenge after last week's ruling on Arizona laws https://t.co/51hGxeLvo3 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @Redistrict: Terrific story by @allymutnick (a must-follow) on a huge redistricting wild card: whether Republicans are willing/able to "… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @peterbakernyt: Worried about the threat of a civilization-ending asteroid collision with Earth? NASA will soon test a way to protect th… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @DanaBashCNN: Voter ID: James Clyburn told me that he's 'absolutely' open to voter ID requirement - CNNPolitics ⁦@CNNSotu⁩ https://t.co… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @Reuters: Brazil's Bolsonaro says he won't hand over presidency if there is vote fraud https://t.co/dUJktg3uV5 https://t.co/iAMKzYRhNd — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @liamstack: The New York Times published its first article about HIV/AIDS 40 years ago today: “Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals.” http… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @blfraga: 🚨 Absent some 11th hour stop to this DP madness, it will be virtually impossible for all but a few privileged researchers to s… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@SeanTrende @sahilkapur @RobGeorge @EsotericCD (this wouldn't help the establishment, but separately i think abrams would have a very real chance to take on kh 1v1) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@SeanTrende @sahilkapur @RobGeorge @EsotericCD i've always thought duckworth was the obvious option in this respect, eligibility question notwithstanding — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

What the left fears is that there aren’t really any textually race-neutral voting restrictions that this court would say violate VRA section 2 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @capitalweather: 9pm: TORNADO WARNING for DC and just to the east (red box). NWS says “a severe thunderstorm capable of producing a torn… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@DL_BC @VanillaMag1lla fwiw the literacy test would fail the (admittedly arbitrary and nonsubstantive) standard of a 'usual burden' in 1982 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Take the Native Americans who rely on third-party ballot collection, for ex. Under the new standard, the plausible violation would be that the state doesn't offer a ballot collection option close enough to Native Americans, not that the state barred third party collection https://t.co/be8ftTrWW5 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One thing that's interesting about this, fwiw, is that the proposed standard really flips around the natural analysis for establishing a violation. Usually, you look at the restriction. Now, the question would be as much about what's left after the restriction — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This is the heart of the matter post-Brnvoich. What does violate a 'usual burden'-like standard? https://t.co/HpkcJU9nW4 https://t.co/yE8c7tUXjf — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @markniesse: Fulton County's absentee ballots are now available for download. I put all 148K of them online so anyone can see them, with… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @persily: Brnovich was as expected; 3 things stood out: 1 Voting practices existing in 1982 deserve some special presumption of validity… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @ValisJason: I hate to say this, but it’s obvious that the DNC should not have sued to overturn the Arizona voting restrictions. The par… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

to be clear, i'm just saying that's how the majority appears to be looking at it, and how it might look at it going forward https://t.co/PUMVRPMYVA — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @rickhasen: The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has severely weakened Section 2 of the Voting rights Act as a tool to fight against la… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

When you look forward, it seems to me that the one key question will be defining that minimal, essential opportunity to vote (perhaps as it existed in 1982, or maybe in a more principled framing), to establish whether something falls short of it or not — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This is just a first look (and I'm not a lawyer), so thoughts could certainly evolve from here — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

4) The court again reiterates that partisan motives for restrictions are ok, and that doesn't amount to discriminatory purpose. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

3) The court cares about all the opportunities to vote, not just the burden of one provision. It implies that so long as some minimum standard of access has been assured, other restrictions are ok — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Given that most voting in 1982 was election day in-person voting, it's hard to see the court rejecting time/place/manner restrictions on convenience voting, like those the GOP has proposed over the last few years — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

2) The court cares about whether something was standard practice in 1982, when section 2 was amended. So if it's still as easy or easier to vote than it was in 1982, it's probably ok. — PolitiTweet.org