"Current conditions" should be reason enough to persuade the supremes to reconsider their earlier decision.

Our legal system bends over backwards to protect the innocent, the implicit principle being that it's better to risk 10 criminals going free than one innocent person being unjustly punished. That's why we instruct jurors in criminal cases to convict only if guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same principle should hold in questions of the sacred right to vote. But it seems they've turned it upside-down. Better to risk excluding 10,000 legitimate voters than risk 1 fraudulent one getting through.

In truth, of course, that's a feature, not a bug.