on earth with an objection to abortion, giving that individual or organization the unilateral and unfettered power to inflict punishment on whoever assists a woman in terminating a pregnancy. lawrence tribe said that supreme court precedent he pursued and won in 1982, the way he won that case for that bar in cambridge can be the undoing of the texas abortion ban as well. now, how exactly it has to go for that strategy to work, who has to bring the lawsuit and when and against whom, that itself is obviously very important to this as a strategy. logically it s also really interesting even to those of us who aren t lawyers. we re going to speak to lawrence tribe about that in just a moment. since the texas abortion ban was allowed to go into law last week, we ve been keeping an eye on neighboring states around texas, even neighboring very red
combat election fraud. after all, the state s own election officials have acknowledged that elections in texas are already secure but rather to stem the growing tied of minority voter participation by weaponizing the false, repeatedly debunked accusations of widespread voter fraud advanced by supporters of former president donald trump during the 2020 presidential election. the attorney general and members of its delegation tried and failed to overturn the presidential election results and disenfranchise millions of voters in other states. joining us now is mark elias, democratic voting rights attorney. mr. elias, thank you for being here. i know you re busy as always. thanks for having me. each time one of these laws has passed, and each time you have recently filed a lawsuit to try to stop it, i have asked you
though, watching all those developments was a bit of a bull from the blue to get today s news from across texas other state line. from across texas border to the south. because today the supreme court of mexico ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban abortion any longer in that country. some states in mexico allow for legal abortion, some do not, but the supreme court ruling today in mexico struck down one state s abortion ban, and the ruling is expected to be binding on all states in the country. in other words, mexico just got its roe v. wade today, just a few days after the republican-appointed majority on our supreme court got rid of the protections of roe in the united states of america. it s like our two countries passed each other at the threshold, right? one country leaving the century going backwards, the other one on its way in. nobody is quite sure what the
election day we want a bubble around the voting locations themselves which is why states have bans, for example, on electioneering in the polls. we want to make sure the election workers at the polls have the ability to keep attention at bay and keep the voting lines moving. what texas has done is put in place a regime that removals the ability of the election officials to do that and really invites bad behavior on the part of partisan poll watching officials. and we know from history when that s done, it is inevitably republicans who are targeting black and brown voters. so i expect we ll see that in texas and we re going to be prepared to challenge that in court. marc, last question for you. if this case or some combination of this case and other cases ends up getting to the united states supreme court, as we have seen these waves of voter restriction laws pass in republican-controlled states all
country or that violates human rights pursuant to a treaty in order to get injunctive relief. i know the attorney general is looking closely at all of his options. he also has optioned under the ku klux klan act to bring criminal proceedings against bounty hunters who are basically engaged in the kind of vigilante justice that led to the enactment of the ku klux klan act of 1971, so it is curious that this little restaurant in harvard square could become a landmark in the path to women s rights, human rights and the rule of law which is being turned upside down by the state of texas. i think a lot of people looking at this from the outside, from outside the legal system, is sort of lamenting this abrupt change from 50 years of established precedent in the court and what we thought were