• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    Ah I read the article now. Seems there may be actual legal justification in at least some cases.

    • MacAttak8@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Federal law is supposed to supersede state law. Although States are supposed to be free to run their elections how they choose.

      This makes the whole situation a gray area that the DOJ hasn’t seemed to feel the need to clarify.

    • ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Isn’t the “legal justification” they used not including ‘Federal officers’ on their list of ‘category of persons’ allowed to be present during voting?

      So they intentionally passed an (illegal) law that forbids the DOJ from overseeing the election process because oopsey daisy we totally didn’t mean to write a law that breaks the law!

      But if you could honor our intentionally broken law while we’re committing the specific crimes you are here to prevent, that’d be super lawful of you.