[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1006214154527674368?[/TWITTER]
[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1006217208182329345[/TWITTER]
[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1006217430232952834[/TWITTER]
But as Dan McLaughlin pointed out in a comprehensive piece at National Review, the court’s narrow 5-4 decision in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute only resolved a narrow point of federal statutory law:
Schemer Gets Hysterical After SCOTUS Defends Ohio's Voter Registration Process
[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1006217208182329345[/TWITTER]
[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1006217430232952834[/TWITTER]
But as Dan McLaughlin pointed out in a comprehensive piece at National Review, the court’s narrow 5-4 decision in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute only resolved a narrow point of federal statutory law:
The Court was not asked to decide if states are allowed to purge names from the voter rolls. Federal law requires them to do so. That law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, was written by congressional Democrats, passed with the votes of every single Democratic senator and 238 of the 252 Democrats in the House at the time (including Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Schemer Gets Hysterical After SCOTUS Defends Ohio's Voter Registration Process