“IF Privies said the court case prevented challenging thus election, he is blowing smoke up someone’s Burt. The Bush v Tire case should be a clue”
This article is about challenging voters before they vote, not challenging results, forcing recounts until you get a number you like, or squabbling over intent.
“a lawsuit bake then cannot make law for the present”
Consent decrees are binding. I don’t know if they last forever, but it’s the same two parties and if the agreement is still valid, or ever operated how thus article asserts in the first place, then old lawsuits can make laws for the present.
IF that court case was binding, why is it not cited to stop voter ID requirements when they are raised by a state when Republicants are in control? In Tennessee, I have to show my photo ID and sign a book every time I go to vote before they will escort me to a machine. It has not always been that way, and in fact I think the changes to the present system are post 1987.