At Slate. I found one part odd: “The hearing ended early. There would be no more witnesses for the state and only a few more witnesses for petitioners. I used the bonus time to meet up with a local Republican strategist who’d been following the hearings as close as everybody else and had a low opinion of them. The theory: Any decision in the Commonwealth Court would be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Why play your aces when you’ve got a higher-stakes game coming up? Why not just let the anti-ID crowd put on a parade of sad witnesses for the media?”
But given the temporary 3-3 split on the state Supreme Court, there’s a decent chance the trial judge’s decision would be final.
UPDATE: More from Weigel on Lori Minnite’s testimony about Hans von Spakovsky’s research.
Here is the Minnite guest post she’s referring to in her tesimony:
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=23572
And here’s the back story on von Spakovsky stonewalling me on the 1984 grand jury report:
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=19560
And here are more reasons to think he’s not credible:
See here, here, here and here.
More about him in the “Fraudulent Fraud Squad” chapter of my new book, The Voting Wars.