A federal judge on Tuesday opened a path for a massive expansion in absentee voting in Texas by ordering that all state voters regardless of age qualify for a mail-in ballot during the coronavirus pandemic.

Days after two hour preliminary injunction hearing in San Antonio, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery agreed with individual Texas voters and the Texas Democratic Party that voters would face irreparable harm if existing age eligibility rules for voting by mail remain in place for elections held while the coronavirus remains in wide circulation. Under his order, which will surely be appealed, voters under the age of 65 who would ordinarily not qualify for a mail-in ballot would now be eligible.

In the federal lawsuit, the Texas Democrats argued that holding traditional elections under the circumstances brought on by the coronavirus pandemic would impose unconstitutional and illegal burdens on voters unless state law was clarified to expand who can qualify to vote by mail.

They focused, in part, on the state’s eligibility rules that limit absentee voting based on age to those who are 65 or older. They argued that rule violated the U.S. Constitution because it would impose additional burdens on voters who are younger than 65 during the pandemic, and Biery agreed.

A federal judge on Tuesday opened a path for a massive expansion in absentee voting in Texas by ordering that all state voters regardless of age qualify for a mail-in ballot during the coronavirus pandemic.

Days after two hour preliminary injunction hearing in San Antonio, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery agreed with individual Texas voters and the Texas Democratic Party that voters would face irreparable harm if existing age eligibility rules for voting by mail remain in place for elections held while the coronavirus remains in wide circulation. Under his order, which will surely be appealed, voters under the age of 65 who would ordinarily not qualify for a mail-in ballot would now be eligible.

In the federal lawsuit, the Texas Democrats argued that holding traditional elections under the circumstances brought on by the coronavirus pandemic would impose unconstitutional and illegal burdens on voters unless state law was clarified to expand who can qualify to vote by mail.

They focused, in part, on the state’s eligibility rules that limit absentee voting based on age to those who are 65 or older. They argued that rule violated the U.S. Constitution because it would impose additional burdens on voters who are younger than 65 during the pandemic, and Biery agreed.

President Donald Trump has been relentless in his political attacks on former Vice President Joe Biden, despite the fact that the RNC recently poll-tested 20 different lines of attack against Biden and found that none of them were effective.

Trump’s latest line of attack has been the ill-defined conspiracy theory known as “Obamagate” — which Mediaite founder Dan Abrams has dismissed as “100 percent bullshit” — but it certainly wasn’t the first, and won’t be the last. The hobby horse has found plenty of traction among Trump’s supporters and media allies, but not much anywhere else.

If recent past is prologue, the presumptive Democratic nominee might tale comfort in knowing that Trump’s political apparatus is having a difficult time divining a persuasive attack strategy.

On Friday, The New York Times published a deeply-reported piece by Alexander Burns, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Martin, and Nick Corasaniti entitled “A Sitting President, Riling the Nation During a Crisis,” which noted the frequency and ferocity of Trump’s attacks on Biden. They described Trump’s recent attacks as a “lurch by Mr. Tru​mp back to ​​the darkest tactics that defined his rise to political power​.”

But deep in that report was the revelation that Trump’s attempts at tarring Biden — some of which he’s still using — are not effective, according to his allies’ own data:

Last month, a poll commissioned by the Republican National Committee tested roughly 20 lines of attack against Mr. Biden, ranging from the private business activities of his son, Hunter Biden, to whether Mr. Biden has “lost” a step, a reference to mental acuity. None of the lines of attack significantly moved voter sentiment, according to two people briefed on the results. There were some lines of attack that had potential, one of the people briefed on the results said, but they were more traditional Republican broadsides about issues like taxes.