From The Reporter's Notebook
TPM's Tierney Sneed reported on the issues Texas has had following court orders that have softened its voter ID law. Kristen Clarke, the president and executive director of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, blamed the Supreme Court's 2013 decision Shelby County v. Holder, which allowed Texas to implement the law in the first place. "Justice Roberts observed that things have changed dramatically across the country,” she said. “The situation makes clear that isn’t the case, that voters continue to face obstacles and discrimination, and the slow case-by-case approach to litigation that we have had to mount in the last few years proved that 2013's Supreme Court ruling was a setback for democracy.”
Agree or Disagree?
Josh Marshall: "The Trump campaign is made up of know-nothings and charlatans. The chances of total self-delusion aren't just high. They're close to a certainty. There's a good chance that Trump is doing this because he's an idiot. But even if he weren't an idiot, I think there might be a decent logic to the decision. Trump has a lot of states he absolutely has to win. If he loses just Florida, or just North Carolina or just several other states on their own, he's done. The problem is that even if he wins all those states he probably comes up just short. The must-win states by most measures simply don't get him to the actual win. To win, he really needs to pick off at least one and likely more than one states that people are now assuming are fairly solidly blue. I'm thinking Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, perhaps Virginia."
"What would happen if I did that? Electric chair, I think. The electric chair. If I did that, could you imagine?"
- Trump brought up hacked emails purporting to show interim DNC chair Donna Brazile sharing debate questions with Clinton, saying that he would get “the electric chair” if he was in the same situation.
BUZZING: Today in the Hive
From a TPM Prime member: "We know HRC is a fighter, more so than Obama. I do not believe the Republicans can get away with preventing an appointment for 4 years, or even two years. If midterms come around and the seat is vacant the dems will launch an all out war on the Republicans and pick off the vulnerable ones. I expect them to make it a major talking point as soon as the first nominee is held up or voted down. When they are made to part attention to it, history and polling have shown that voters do not like holding up judicial nominations. The 'up or down vote' language resonates. And they can only reject so many good nominees. Each new one is a new story of obstruction."
Related: A number of Republican lawmakers and scholars have already begun openly rationalizing why Clinton shouldn't be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices.
Have something to add? Become a Prime member and join the discussion here.
What We're Reading
Overcoming loss in the middle of a historic campaign. (CNN)
The only six newspapers to endorse Donald Trump. (Politico)