US Supreme Court's Opinion on Arizona's Voting Laws

[Steve R.]

Grumble.

The US Supreme Court recently upheld Arizona's voting laws. Kagan wrote a 41 page diatribe condemning the decision. So I thought to take a look at what she had to say. Turns out that none of the news sources bothered to mention the actual name of of the lawsuit (BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE) or provide a link to the Court's published opinion so that you could read it. I eventually located it.

For purposes of future sleuthing, the listings of the US Supreme Court opinions for the "term year 2020" can be found here.

BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ETAL. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ETAL. PDF

I have not yet read the dissent, but I am in agreement with the Court's decision. I find the Democratic Party's contention (below) to be patently absurd. It appears to be another lame attempt to use the subjective concept "disparate impact" to sidestep making a decision based on the US Constitution. (The US Constitution is the legal foundation, "legislative intent", while it can add clarity "legislative intent" is not a basis to determine that a law is consistent with the US Constitution since some "legislative intent" has also been found to be unconstitutional.) Every law, in one form or another has an unfortunate "disparate impact" in some form that is highly subjective. It also sidesteps the issue that the voter has a responsibility to make sure that they are properly registered and vote at the correct location. Seems that the three dissenting judges (Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor) drank the "woke" kool-aid.

"The Democratic National Committee and certain affiliates filed suit, alleging that both the State’s refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct and its ballot-collection restriction had an adverse and disparate effect on the State’s American Indian, Hispanic, and African-American citizens in violation of §2 of the VRA. Additionally, they alleged that the ballot-collection restriction was “enacted with discriminator intent” and thus violated both §2 of the VRA and the Fifteenth Amendment."

Kagan rips colleagues in blistering 41-page voting rights dissent

Justice Elena Kagan ripped her conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court on Thursday in a blistering 41-page dissent, accusing them of ignoring the legislative intent of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as well as the high court’s own prec

thehill.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

The only problem I see in the AZ ruling is it fire's up the liberal base to pack the court.

Hopefully this sets a trend for Georgia and other states that are experiencing the most trusted and honest election of all time.

 

[Isaac]

It's amazing that we need 9 people, accomplished law men, United States Supreme Court Justices, who dedicate their life to deciding important and complicated questions, to decide whether it's OK that, in order to vote, you need to be willing and able to read a calendar, pull up a website to see where to vote, scribble marks on a piece of paper, and possibly put an envelope into a mailbox...

 

[conception_native_0123]

The most trusted and honest election of all time.

Yeah right

 

[Steve R.]

Went through Kagan's dissent. My viewpoint of Kagan's dissent is prejudiced, which is a reason to read her dissent. Essentially, her dissent at the beginning is a diatribe that focuses on past racial injustice (Democratic Party talking points). I assume to set the stage for arriving at her conclusion that Arizona's voting law was somehow unconstitutional. The last few pages of her dissent, at least, provide some factual context. For example, I found it unreasonable for Kagan to assert that the law is somehow discriminatory (voter suppression) in the case of a person (Native American) who lives in a rural isolated community far from a voting booth. What if the person was White? Kagan ignores that a citizen has a responsibility to get to the voting booth. Every person, no matter what their racial background, has to overcome some "difficulties" to get to the voting booth. Kagan went on to note that: "Arizona threw away far more out-of-precinct votes—almost 40,000—than did any other State in the country." That "difficulty" was the stupidity of the voter. So according to Kagan, when a voter can't vote correctly, the government must somehow fix that "difficulty? Unbelievable.

Kagan noted that the State of North Carolina enacted a voting bill that eliminated same day registration. She used that notation within the context that eliminating same day registration and reducing early voting, was somehow "voter suppression". Same day voter registration seems to be an opportunity for fraud. As for early voting, how many days do you really need? In fact, voting early can be detrimental to an election as the voters may actually be ill-informed. Think of how many people may have avoided voting for Biden had they known about the Hunter Biden scandal? Here Kagan crossed a line of turning legitimate election laws to maintain election integrity into examples of unjustified partisan claims of "voter suppression".

 

[Pat Hartman]

I wonder how we ever conducted an election during the past 250 years? Somehow people managed to cast their ballots on the appointed day. They didn't need early voting. They didn't need drop boxes. They didn't need mail in ballots. They didn't need Spanish explanations on the ballots. They didn't need same-day registration. Maybe Americans today are just too dumb to trust with voting and that's why the Democrats want to cast their ballots for them.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Maybe Americans today are just too dumb to trust with voting and that's why the Democrats want to cast their ballots for them.

That very well may be true Pat

 

[Steve R.]

I wonder how we ever conducted an election during the past 250 years? Somehow people managed to cast their ballots on the appointed day. They didn't need early voting. They didn't need drop boxes. They didn't need mail in ballots. They didn't need Spanish explanations on the ballots. They didn't need same-day registration. Maybe Americans today are just too dumb to trust with voting and that's why the Democrats want to cast their ballots for them.

Today, we have a lot of electronic marvels and software to assist with the mundane vote counting. So no problem, yet .....

NYC Election Officials Met Secretly Over Mayoral Race Debacle

Election officials in New York City met secretly Wednesday to discuss the vote count debacle in the high-profile Democrat mayoral race. New York City's Board of Elections on Tuesday released an incorrect tally...

www.newsmax.com

Iowa caucus 'debacle' spurs calls for new primary election format

As the wait for complete Democratic primary results continues, Johns Hopkins experts size up the flaws in Iowa's first-in-the-nation nominating contest for presidential candidates

hub.jhu.edu

The two examples above are probably outliers, so by themselves they do not mean much. Nevertheless, it points to overly complicated systems and human incompetence. Whether the inability to tally-up the voting results in a judicious manner is growing or not as an issue, I don't know.
(But as an editorial aside. As I was looking through the search results, many of the articles concerning New York took gratuitous derogatory jabs at Trump as if he somehow set the stage for the decline in voting integrity. I guess Trump just lives on as a "whipping boy" by those consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome.)

 

[Isaac]

Trump Derangement

Have you heard of the DeSantis variant? I hear it now accounts for fully a quarter of all active cases

 

[Pat Hartman]

The inability to tally the results in a timely manner is by design. Just as not serializing the ballots to prevent counterfeits is by design. If you don't publish the number of ballots you printed, no one can question the extra days/weeks of counting because the public has no way of knowing how many ballots are out there. They have no idea if you are printing ballots with the desired marks or simply scanning the same group of favorable ballots multiple times. They just keep counting until they get the result they want. Look what happened in the NYC mayoral primary. Three days after the election, they're still counting and slowly, the leader switches to the one the DNC wants to be the candidate.

This happens way too often and people need to wake up to the corruption. This time they said the bogus votes were from a test run and they forgot to clear the tallies before counting the real votes. Did I mention I have a bridge for sale? It's even in the same city. It connects Mahattan to Brooklin.