If that article is accurately written, the ruling applies to absentee ballots — NOT to the mail-in ballots that were mandated by some states (including mine). Absentee and mail-in ballots are NOT the same thing.
No but they are similar enough that I’d think it would take some mental gymnastics to rule differently on how they are handled. I would also think that unless the legislature passed an emergency mail in ballot law that just sending unsolicited ballots to addresses with no knowledge of who actually lives there and the ultimate disposition of such ballots would be cause for judicial concern.
Did the legislature pass a specific amendment to the state election code that allowed for cv19 handling procedures?
If not, Texas is right.
‘the ruling applies to absentee ballots — NOT to the mail-in ballots that were mandated by some states (including mine). Absentee and mail-in ballots are NOT the same thing.’
Well, mail-in ballots were enabled because of the illegal agreement between election officials and democRATS, without knowledge/consent of the state legislature, and, in violation of their own State Constitution and the US Constitution.
If absentee ballots must be received by close of election time on election day, then mail-in ballots are subject to the same rule - it is a matter of ‘Equal Protection’
Whoever argues about this must cite this as precedent.
Pretty sure it applies to any ballot NOT cast in person, standing in line at polls.