I am not an optimist by nature. When it comes to Republicans' willingness to skirt the law, violate norms and disregard precedent, I don't dwell on what might go right. I obsess over what can go wrong.

So when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration can resume using its voter suppression database to help Republicans remove voters from the rolls, I called it what it is: a terrible decision that will empower election deniers at a time when our elections are already under attack.

Since then, some lawyers and pundits have argued that the decision's impact will be quite limited. They point to a passage in the dissent suggesting there might be "a bright side to today's opinion."

Because federal law bars mass removals of voters in the 90 days before Election Day, Justice Jackson argues, the ruling "will likely have minimal short-term impact, as States will at most conduct individualized voter-roll maintenance using the modified SAVE system."

Let me begin by saying that I agree with Justice Jackson: federal law prohibits mass voter purges close to an election, and only individualized removals are permitted. I also agree with her that even these individual removals pose concrete harm to lawful voters and undermine free and fair elections.

But Justice Jackson was writing in dissent. The majority opinion is far cagier on this question. Indeed, the Court has agreed to hear a case later this year that could test exactly this interpretation of federal law.

Justice Jackson's optimism rests on the majority's acknowledgment that the quiet period "limits the potential impact" of its ruling. But read the rest of the passage, and the bright side dims considerably.

The majority went on to say that the lower court's order prevented "the Federal Government from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this period."

Then, in a footnote, the conservative justices added that they will consider the scope of the quiet period in a separate case scheduled for argument later this year, and that "we do not need to decide it here."

In that case, Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, which the Court will hear in December, the RNC, backed by the Trump Justice Department, argues that Arizona may cancel the registrations of voters it deems noncitizens during the 90-day quiet period.

Put simply, Justice Jackson's "bright side" depends on Republican state and local election officials following federal law, and on the Supreme Court holding firm if election deniers try to purge voters.

If the past is prologue, the signs are not hopeful.