A follow-up to yesterday’s post:
Here’s the judge’s opinion in support of her TRO barring Oklahoma election officials from certifying the voters’ adoption of a constitutional amendment barring Oklahoma state courts from considering or using international law or shariah law in deciding cases.
On a quick read, I don’t find compelling the judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff “has shown a substantial likelihood of success” on his Establishment Clause claim. In particular, I don’t see how the plaintiff’s proffered evidence shows that the amendment’s “actual purpose is to disapprove of plaintiff’s faith.” The judge’s separate conclusion that the amendment violates plaintiff’s free-exercise rights seems equally ill-founded.
I’m also puzzled as to why the appropriate remedy for the supposed violations is to bar certification of the election results.