Voting rights case won't be heard until after election

Putting legal procedure ahead of legal rights:

Alexander Peters, a senior deputy attorney general for the state, maintained it would be unrealistic to complete discovery by April, which would be the deadline if a trial were to proceed next summer.

Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake said in her ruling a trial next year might not provide enough time to finish discovery, the process of collecting and sharing information in a case. She did leave open the possibility that a preliminary injunction would be filed, which would put the voting changes on hold.

Here's a little bit of common sense for you, if there's any room for that in the rarified atmosphere of a civil courtroom: if a law that potentially infringes on the civil rights of citizens is so complex it takes that much time to get a handle on it, shouldn't it be set on the legal shelf (injunction) until it can be legally vetted? Another question: if said bill only took 3 months for the NCGA to process it, while they were also processing hundreds of other bills, why will it take over a year to gather the evidence needed do defend it?