“Further, in fairness I think all the Pubs agreed to do in this suit and what appears to be at the center of the court’s view, is not to “us[e], [or] appear[] to use, racial or ethnic criteria in connection with ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy suspected vote fraud.’ “
if this is indeed the case, why hasn’t there been any pursuit of calling out election fraud based on the integrity of the ballot/vote cast, regardless of the racial makeup of the voters?
The decisions establish this is indeed the case and offer the answer to your question.
Perhaps the most blatant examples of voter fraud appear to occur in areas that have an identifiable racial or low income makeup.
Politics is more likely to be a “team sport” in such areas and may also offer the opportunity to vote many times in order to pick up some walking around money.
Thus, in such areas it is arguably impossible to avoid the court prohibited “appearance” of using racial criteria…etc.
Sure, the Pubs at the time got rolled on their agreement. As I often said in my posts a few years ago: “The Pubs and the Dems are in a street fight for the soul our nation, but it seems only the Dems know this.”
Voter ID requirements seem fundamentally sensible and the lack thereof inexcusable. Since forged ID is so easily available, an accompanying thumbprint would probably deter or reveal much fraud and in this computer age would not seem unreasonable.