Case: 20-50407 Document: 00515441096 Page: 18 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 No. 20-50407 population because of the way they [sic] may vote.” 27 2. The state officials will likely prove error, because the district court ignored the case that squarely governs the equal-protection issue: McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, 394 U.S. 803 (1969) (Warren, C.J.). 28 Under McDonald, rational-basis review will probably apply, and section 82.003 stands. a. In McDonald, the Court held that an Illinois statute that denied certain inmates mail-in ballots did not restrict their right to vote. Id. at 807. Instead, it burdened only their asserted right to an absentee ballot, because there was no evidence that the state would not provide them another way to vote. Id. at 807–08. Put differently, there was no indication that the inmates were “in fact absolutely prohibited from voting by the State[.]” Id. at 808 n.7 (emphasis added). The absentee rules did “not themselves deny [the inmates] the exercise of the franchise; nor, indeed, d[id] Illinois’ Election Code so operate as a whole[.]” Id. at 807–08. The McDonald Court therefore applied rational-basis review, not strict scrutiny, and easily upheld the absentee-ballot scheme. Id. at 808–11. The state’s refusal to give the inmates a mail ballot was not irrational, “particularly in view of the many other classes of Illinois citizens not covered by the absentee provisions, for whom voting may [have been] extremely difficult, if not practically impossible.” Id. at 809–10. This is an extremely serious accusation that calls into question the judge’s evenhandedness. In the interest of time and space, we let it pass without further comment. 27 Amazingly, the district court cites McDonald but once—and only to summarize Texas’s arguments. 28 18