On Wednesday, in an act demonstrating either policy preference judicial activism or simply not being very bright, Trump appointed U.S. District Judge Jason Pulliam issued a temporary ruling that the exemption from having to wear a face covering at Texas polling locations “creates a discriminatory burden on Black and Latino voters.”
The despicable 11th-hour ruling came about because earlier in the summer the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sent a lawsuit by Democrat front groups back to Pulliam to review and said that if the judge found that not requiring masks at polls somehow violated the Voting Rights Act, by allowing discriminatory voting practices based on race, he could order changes.
The point of law is discriminatory voting practices and yet there is no discrimination on voting practices under the situation – it is not as if black folk and Latinos were ordered to wear masks while whites and Asians were not or vice versa. There is clearly zero discrimination in voting practices against anyone if all are free to choose whether or not they put on a face covering to vote.
Ruling that everyone must have their liberty infringed upon because statistically members of a politically recognized group might be harmed slightly worse than others is opening up a Pandora’s box as there would be no end to the problems which could be alleged, and remedied by government action, as there are disparate effects with almost all disease, communicable or not.
The judge, appointed to a state court by Gov. Perry and then the federal bench by Trump, was rightly was stopped Thursday by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. But if the thinking in his ruling is allowed to stand at a later date, a thinking person would ask: “What next? Will it be deemed a discriminatory voting practice if some wear short sleeves, or some wear hats and others not, to the polls because, according the American Cancer Society, Anglos suffer skin cancer at rates 20 times more than blacks?”
Even with WuFlu being a communicable disease, there is nothing discriminatory that hurts minorities because they are free to wear a mask while voting. And the second point addresses the judge’s underlying justification of potential harm: Ruling that everyone must have their liberty infringed upon because statistically members of a politically recognized group might be harmed slightly worse than others is opening up a Pandora’s box as there would be no end to the problems which could be alleged, and remedied by government action, as there are disparate effects with almost all disease, communicable or not.
Shallow thinkers make up way too much of our court systems and they come from appointments made by both political parties.
Voting is a Constitutional right. Rights cannot be infringed upon, as by issuing mask restrictions, even more unreasonable when they have no credible scientific merit. Politicians trying to force people to wear masks to vote is outrageous. Elsewhere, we can refuse to patronize businesses that require masks, but not to vote.
The growing governmental coercion has become increasingly abusive and inhumane, for example, the mask mandates in order to receive healthcare in Lubbock, supported by unscrupulous medical “professionals” who should know better. Sadly, countless people in Lubbock are also being forced to wear a mask just to have a job.
And all of this for a virus with an IFR of 0.015 to 0.2% across all ages.