I’m guessing the people in the airports got to see the report
Supreme Court deals blow to American democracy
Eight years ago, the US Supreme Court gutted a major portion of the Voting Rights Act in its infamous Shelby County v. Holder decision, making it easier for states with a history of voter discrimination to enact new onerous voting rules. States like Georgia and Texas took notice, passing strict new voter ID laws, absentee ballot rules and a host of other provisions that make it harder for some people to vote.
Yeah, because it was pretty much unconstitutional at this point. The majority of Americans support voter ID and other measures which verify that the person voting is exactly that person and is eligible to vote.
Also, we aren’t a democracy. If Democrats, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, blocking blacks from voting, and so forth, really want to protect the system, let’s get rid of the 17th Amendment and go back to when Senators were appointed by state general assemblies.
The Court just doubled down on that attack on the right to vote.
The specific Arizona laws at issue in the Brnovich case, which the Court just decided by a 6-3 vote that fell on predictable ideological lines, are less momentous than the rule the Court laid down for future Voting Rights Act cases. Still, while upholding the Arizona laws, the Court made it much harder for voting rights advocates to protect against racial discrimination.
Yup, CNN’s Joshua A. Douglas went with the raaaaacism angle. Funny how Leftists don’t think blacks can vote like everyone else in 2021, that they need the Government to provide protection. That blacks can’t obtain proper identification.
Voting rights plaintiffs had filed suit against two Arizona laws: one says that a vote will not count if a voter goes to the wrong precinct and then, finding their name not in the poll books, fills out a provisional ballot. The other limits who can collect and return completed ballots, also known to opponents as ballot harvesting. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting rules that have the effect of making it harder for minority voters to cast a ballot that will count.
Wait, Douglas, and the rest of the Dems, are upset that the state is limiting who can pick up ballots, protecting the integrity of the ballots? Huh.
Rather than continuing with the long, whiny screed, which fails to once again note that we do not have a Democracy and that the Constitution deems that States have the power to enact most of their own voting rules, let’s go to National Review (yes, full of Never Trumpers, but, they tend to be correct and not losing their minds when Trump isn’t involved)
A Good Day for Free Speech and Free Elections
Legal constitutionalists and political conservatives have had reason to be disappointed at times with the Roberts Court, but today is not one of those days. The Court concluded its 2020-21 term with a pair of 6-3 rulings written by George W. Bush’s appointees (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) and joined by all six Republican appointees to the Court. Both reached the right conclusions. Both will advance the progress of the law toward a vibrant space for democracy, by protecting free speech and free and fair elections. (I’m skipping past the part related to California)
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee upheld two Arizona laws that are common across many states: a ban on counting provisional ballots if they are cast in person in the wrong precinct, and a ban on “ballot harvesting,†preventing activist groups from collecting and handling another person’s completed mail-in ballot. Both types of rules are regularly decried as “voter suppression†by hysterical Democrats. The Court properly found that Arizona had a legitimate interest both in assigning voters to precincts and in protecting the sanctity of the secret ballot from the threat of voter intimidation or fraud presented by third parties handling ballots. (snip)
The Court’s renewed focus on the language of the law passed by Congress, and its guidance in how to apply it in practice, is welcome. The doors of the federal courthouse should always remain open to protect all Americans — and black Americans in particular, given the nation’s painful history — from laws that result in real discrimination in who is able to vote. But federal law was never intended to put every state in the Union in a permanent straitjacket to the point where even temporary emergency voting rules adopted to manage a once-in-a-century pandemic can never be revisited. Brnovich is bad news for junk lawsuits such as the Justice Department’s suit against Georgia. But it is good news for letting the people’s representatives protect free, fair, open, and orderly elections. Trust in democracy requires nothing less.
Even NRO drops “democracy”. It’s an easy term in this case, meant to denote being able to vote. Anyhow, SCOTUS noted that there is nothing in the Voting Rights Act that precludes states from putting mild inconveniences on voters in order to protect the sanctity of the vote.
