So who made this argument?

“The state of Florida is correct to seek integrity in our electoral system, Sound election laws ensure the people are heard without distortion from negligent and bad faith actors. Here, however, Florida’s solutions for preserving election integrity are too far removed from the problems it has put forward as justifications.”

If you believe this sounds like a politician making a reasonable political argument against a bill being debated in congress, then you would be wrong.

First and foremost no politician actually speaks like this. They would be more likely to argue that the bill pushes fascism, that it is racist, and that people are going to die if passed. I could only wish that our politicians made reasonable well spoken arguments void of rhetoric.

Nope, this was an Obama appointed Federal Judge ruling to strike down the law. Of course what make a good political argument against a law does not follow to a good legal argument. Judge Walker has a history of controversial decisions and was very recently overturned by the 11th Circuit Court on another Florida election law. This decision being appealed is inevitable as is likely a reversal of this decision by the Circuit Court.

Why? Because quite obviously this is a Judge who wants to be a politician. The main idea here is not a legal argument, but a political one. This judge doesn't like the law, so he is going to overturn it. Reading portions of the 58 page decision finds dubious references to legal issues.

For instance Walker determines that a law that requires that people working to register American voters actually be Americans (banning non-citizens) to be a violation of the 14th amendment. Does the constitution really guarantee non-citizens (who don't hold the right to vote) to have the right to otherwise be involved in our elections in any capacity? Many jobs require American citizenship and some will even require a background check (I have held more than one of these jobs). By Walker's argument, these requirements would be violations of the 14th amendment.

He further argues that the portion of the law that makes it illegal to sell or otherwise use voter registration information for purposes other than voter registration is a violation of the first Amendment (freedom of speech)? States have passed all sorts of laws that prevents companies from selling information that they garner under other pretenses. Again, by Walker's logic, all of these laws protecting personal consumer information would be a violation of someone's first amendment rights.

So where does this put us?

Again... right back to the idea that liberals cannot simply judge actions for actions. They must first parse who is is performing an action and why they are performing it before they come to their conclusions. If it is one set of actors doing it for one reason, then that can be declared illegal because the judge does not approve of those people or their reasoning. But another set of actors doing the same thing for a different reason can be perfectly legal, because the Judge approves of those people and their reasoning. If this sounds like a recurring theme it is because it is.

Moreover such legal reasoning is exactly why the average American citizen does not even bother to pretend to understand the legal reasoning being used by most judges. The knee jerk reaction is to simply support decisions that back their political views and demand all other decisions represent fascism (or whatever). But when asked, the vast majority of Americans would do away with Judges who parse the situations and bend the laws to achieve a desired result. The vast majority of Americans want judges to follow the constitution and base their decisions on legal (not political) reasoning.

At the end of the day, elections are supposed to one person one vote. Each American citizen should be equally important and responsible for no more than themselves in the grand scheme of Democracy. What liberals want is a democracy where political winners are determined by which side has the most advocacy groups and spends the most money and time on things like ballot harvesting and other forms of get out the vote measures.

Ms. Herrera-Lucha, a noncitizen who, herself, lacks the right to vote, has spent years registering and encouraging citizens to exercise that solemn right. She may, at least for now, continue to do so and add more voices to the millions of others singing a more perfect Union into existence.

So what Judge Walker is openly advocating is that a noncitizen (who lacks the right to vote) has some actual constitutional right to otherwise affect our Democracy. Let's be clear. Herrera-Lucha is not engaged in any objective public service that benefits the citizens of Florida as a whole. She is openly engaged in the promotion of one particular political party and very specific candidates. While nobody can take away her free right to have an opinion or express that opinion. Gathering personal information from Americans in an official capacity for partisan political reasons goes beyond "free speech". Where those lines are drawn is a political (not legal) decision and even if it was a legal one, there is no guarantee in the constitution that allows non-citizens to be actively engaged in our elections. Seems these same liberals made quite a stink in 2016 when they believed that Russian non-citizens were involved. Why do they not have the same solemn right?