Sorry, not following too closely. Was this sarcasm/ a whoosh?
If it was a whoosh or there is some subtle distinction between not noticing Posner’s Crawford decision and the SCOTUS decision, have at it. If I’d told any of my law professors that discussing or quoting a SCOTUS opinion meant we never noticed or were aware of the lower court’s ruling I’d expect to have been laughed at. YMMV.
As to the OP, since the primary rationale for the laws is effecting voter suppression, any hiccups in the veneer don’t count. What counts is the result, not the analysis or the process, so Posner’s internal reversal is easily ignored.