The Texas Supreme Court actually said:Big WIN in Texas on Mail-In Ballots!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2020
We agree with the State that a voter’s lack of immunity to COVID-19, without more, is not a “disability” as defined by the Election Code. But the State acknowledges that election officials have no responsibility to question or investigate a ballot application that is valid on its face. The decision to apply to vote by mail based on a disability is the voter’s, subject to a correct understanding of the statutory definition of “disability”. Because we are confident that the Clerks and all election officials will comply with the law in good faith, we deny the State’s petition for writ of mandamus.What that really means is: "Dear Texas Voter: we won't ask, and you don't have to tell." So if my "disability" is my vulnerability to the coronavirus, nobody's going to challenge me when I apply for a mail-in ballot.
The State has conceded that “Respondents have no discretion to do anything but determine whether the voter is entitled to vote by mail and process the application accordingly.” The State acknowledges that the Election Code does not require election clerks to “investigate each applicant’s disability.” Indeed, the Legislature rejected the requirement of a physician’s proof of disability for mail-in voting applications when it amended the Election Code in 1981. And the application form provided by the Secretary of State requires only that voters check a box indicating whether the reason for seeking a ballot by mail is a disability. The voter is not instructed to declare the nature of the underlying disability. The elected officials have placed in the hands of the voter the determination of whether in-person voting will cause a likelihood of injury due to a physical condition. The respondents do not have a ministerial duty, reviewable by mandamus, to look beyond the application to vote by mail. Moreover, while the State has alleged that the Clerks are accepting “improper application[s],” there is no evidence in the record that any has accepted a faulty application.
The Clerks have assured us that they will fully discharge their duty to follow the law. We are confident that they will follow the guidance we have provided here. Accordingly, we conclude that issuing the writ of mandamus to compel them to do so is unwarranted.
And the U.S. Supreme Court simply declined to get involved in that. Why the Democrats don't take the victory is a bit beyond me. They could simply publicize sentences from this opinion and leave it at that. Because while they don't realize it, they won. The system is simply incapable of enforcing the opinion of the Attorney General in this matter.
People Power, People. Claim it!