Case: 20-50407 Document: 00515441096 Page: 20 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 No. 20-50407 The Virus, to be sure, increases the risks of interacting in public. But, under McDonald, a state’s refusal to provide a mail-in ballot does not violate equal protection unless—again—the state has “in fact absolutely prohibited” 30 the plaintiff from voting. 31 Texas permits the plaintiffs to vote in person; that is the exact opposite of “absolutely prohibit[ing]” them from doing so. 32 “Ironically, it is [Texas’s] willingness” to afford flexibility to older citizens “that has provided [the plaintiffs] with a basis for arguing that the provision[]” discriminates. McDonald, 394 U.S. at 810–11. The Constitution is not “offended simply because some” groups “find voting more convenient than” do the plaintiffs because of a state’s mail-in ballot rules. Id. at 810. That is true even where voting in person “may be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible,” because of circumstances beyond the state’s control, such as the McDonald, 394 U.S. at 808 n.7; see also id. at 809. In another place, the McDonald Court states the rule, a bit differently, as whether the “statutory scheme has an impact on [the plaintiffs’] ability . . . to vote.” Id. at 807. But the Court spoke twice of an “absolute[] prohibit[ion],” and McDonald’s follow-on cases quote and apply that language. See O’Brien, 414 U.S. at 529–30; Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 521 & 521 n.7 (1973). McDonald, 394 U.S. at 808, also referred to whether the state had “in fact precluded” the vote. In any event, in this context, there is no relevant difference between the various formulations, because Texas’s decision to allow those aged sixty-five and older to vote by mail does not “impact” the plaintiffs’ ability to vote. 30 See Erlandson v. Kiffmeyer, 659 N.W.2d 724, 733 (Minn. 2003) (“In McDonald, the Court concluded that an Illinois statute that denied unconvicted jail inmates absentee ballots did not restrict the inmates’ right to vote . . . because there was no evidence that jail officials would not provide another means . . . to vote.”). 31 The plaintiffs urge that, in Veasey, 830 F.3d at 216, we—in the plaintiffs’ words— “rejected Texas’s argument that the provision of one form of voting justifies deprivation of another form of voting, here, mail-in voting.” But Veasey stated only that Texas’s provision of a mail-in ballot did not make up for the burdens that its voter-identification law placed on voting in person. See id. at 255 (“The district court did not clearly err in finding that mail-in voting is not an acceptable substitute for in-person voting in the circumstances presented by this case.”). Veasey nowhere said that the state must provide everyone multiple ways to vote. And here, unlike in Veasey, the state has not placed any obstacles on the plaintiffs’ ability to vote in person. That distinction is precisely the one that McDonald, 394 U.S. at 807, 808 n.7, 809, relied on in concluding that rational-basis review was appropriate. Veasey is inapposite. 32 20