By Tom Stubbs | May 18, 2020 at 02:39 PM
I wish I could agree with Richard Robbins, but I cannot. Contrary to Mr. Robbins’ representations in his recent letter to the editor, Barrow v. Raffensperger, was not a complicated case. As the dissent noted, the question was straightforward: can a constitutionally mandated “scheduled election [be canceled] to allow the governor to make an appointment that cannot be made until after the scheduled election. Why?” The most logical reading of this ruling is that the majority put personal partisan priorities and favoritism for a colleague ahead of the law. That kind of ruling, to borrow a phrase, opens the door to the attendant response.
Want to read more? Sign In to ALM Now