NYT: Suuuuure doesn't look like the end of Roe impacted turnout

NYT: Suuuuure doesn't look like the end of Roe impacted turnout
Vote by stefan moertl is licensed under unsplash.com
Will the end of Roe recast the elections in November? According to the New York Times, it might not have even made much of a difference in June. Despite polls over the weekend showing spikes of Democratic voter enthusiasm after the Supreme Court vacated Roe in their Dobbs decision on Friday, by Tuesday voter turnout looked “typically sluggish,” at least in the early going:
The Supreme Court decision ending the constitutional right to abortion was expected to motivate voters. Turnout in several states hosting primaries on Tuesday, however, appeared to be typically sluggish — at least so far.

All of those states have various forms of early voting, meaning that many ballots may have been cast before the court struck down the landmark Roe v. Wade case on Friday.

True, but that misses an important point. Thanks to an unprecedented (and highly unethical) leak from the Supreme Court on May 3, voters have known or at least strongly suspected that a majority on the Supreme Court had decided to toss out Roe and hand abortion back to the states. Early voting may have started before that point in yesterday’s primaries, but perhaps only just. At the least, almost all of this voting period for yesterday’s primaries took place in the knowledge or at least strong suspicion that Roe was toast.
 
Vote by stefan moertl is licensed under unsplash.com