Musings

Biscuit (Noun) : A person who is willfully ignorant and almost certainly incompetent

Home » Voter Suppression – NOT

Voter Suppression – NOT

We talked on the blog last week about how the media lies to us about how laws passed that are designed to bolster confidence and accuracy in voting are really Republican ploys meant to keep minorities from voting. Jim Crow 2.0! Screamed President Dementia. Probably from a note card.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sued the State of Arizona over their recently enacted voter integrity measures. The case went all the way to the supreme court. The court easily picked apart the Democrats arguments and ruled against them. Predictably the three liberals dissented. The mainstream media cried in pain.

A few days before the supreme court ruled against the DNC, the DOJ hastily filed a lawsuit against Georgia’s law in a blatant attempt to get it on the books before the court’s ruling against the Democrats. Nice try, but that suit isn’t going anywhere either. Unless they pack the courts in the meanwhile.

To further understand the details of the case we turn to our resident super-smart guy, constitutional law professor John Hill from the IUPUI School of Law. Take it away John:

Democrats Cry “Wolf” Again in Arizona Voting Law Case

            In the wake of the 2020 election and widespread concerns of vote fraud and ballot harvesting, Arizona passed a law intended to create a more fair, honest, and orderly voting process. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and some fellow knuckleheads challenged this law. In June, the Supreme Court upheld the law in the case, Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona v Democratic National Committee.

            A little background. The DNC challenged Arizona’s law under the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. State voting laws must comply with the VRA under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which makes federal law the “supreme law of the land.” The VRA established a set of broad guidelines to prevent discrimination against minorities in state voting procedures.  It was a good law passed for good reasons at a time when minorities were frequently discriminated against, particularly in southern states. But what was once a well-honed defensive law passed in the name of justice has become an indiscriminate offensive weapon in the Democratic arsenal. Today, the DNC uses the VRA like a drunk redneck with a sawed-off shotgun – to deter states from buttoning up their voting procedures to prevent fraud, ballot harvesting and other abuses.    

            So, what did this “frightening” law (as one goofy liberal journalist put it) do? (Hold on to your popcorn and Junior Mints because this will send you screaming from the theater!) The DNC challenged two items in the law. First, every voter must vote in his or her own precinct. (A vote cast in the wrong precinct will not be counted). Scary shit, huh? Second, the law makes early voting easy but makes it a crime for anyone but a postal worker or an election official to handle someone else’s ballot. This was intended to prevent third parties from ballot harvesting, or intimidating voters, or even paying a voter to handle or transfer their ballot.  (Keep in mind Arizona has special provisions already in place for the disabled or others who need the help of a third party to cast an early ballot.)   

            The DNC claimed that this racially neutral law – which applies to everyone equally — was somehow unfair to African American, Hispanic and Native American voters and, thus, violates the VRA.   

            How could a law which applies to all voters equally and in the same way be discriminatory? Well, in the 2020 election, one percent of minorities who voted in Arizona voted in the wrong precinct.  So, apparently, a law which requires them to vote in the right precinct is now “discriminatory.” Of course, as the Court pointed out, 0.5 percent of non-minorities also voted in the wrong district.  But since a slightly higher percentage of minorities than non-minorities voted in the wrong district, this law would create what lawyers call a “disparate impact” on minorities.  

            Now, if you are scratching your head wondering how this is discriminatory, you’re obviously not sufficiently “woke.”  As the Court pointed out in its 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, however, the new law would presumably put everyone – minorities and non-minorities alike – on notice that they must vote in their own district in the future. Second, the law is “neutral” – it applies to everyone.  Third, as Alito pointed out, even if voters continued to make the same mistake in the future – voting in the wrong district (and I’ll put aside the obvious question: do we really want voters who can’t figure out which precinct they live in to vote?) it is difficult to see how a law that affects less than one precent of all eligible voters has any real impact on the election, one way or another.  And, fourth, the 0.5 percent of non-minorities who voted in the wrong district may actually be a larger number of people than the one percent of minorities (since there are more non-minorities in the population than minorities). In other words, if the law “discriminates” at all, it does so against non-minorities.

            As for the third-party handling of ballots, why is this more likely to affect minorities than non-minorities?  I will leave that to you to ponder. 

            The Supreme Court got it right. What is difficult to understand is how the three liberals – Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor – could find this law objectionable.  But they did.  When the Dems “cry wolf” – yelling “discrimination” when it is just not there — the liberal justices always come running.  They pull out their binoculars, fire off a few shots into the woods and insist that the wolf just got away again.       

5 thoughts on “Voter Suppression – NOT”

  1. So, you need an id to buy alcohol, buy tobacco, get on a plane, get a passport, open a bank account, and all these other things. Yet requiring and ID to vote and some other rules and restrictions to make voting more secure in a bid to uphold our democracy is supposedly disenfranchising the common person when it comes to making their voice heard. Gtfo.

  2. Professor Hill’s deconstruction of the DNC “argument” exposes it as a proposal to obstruct justice; as a matter of enforcement & oversight.

    Why would an electronic system, promised to be unconnected to the internet, require software & virus updates?!?

    7/16/21, Bannon’s War Room podcast: “Trump not only won- but he won in a friggin’ landslide!” – Dr. Peter Navarro

  3. Arizona Demographics
    According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Arizona was:

    White: 77.22%
    Other race: 6.53%
    Black or African American: 4.50%
    Native American: 4.50%
    Two or more races: 3.73%
    Asian: 3.31%
    Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.21%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *