The Voting Rights Act had a surprisingly good day at the Supreme Court

[applegrove]

The Voting Rights Act had a surprisingly good day at the Supreme Court

If the Voting Rights Act survives this latest challenge, thank bad lawyering on the GOP side.

By Ian Millhiser at Vox  Mar 2, 2021, 1:45pm EST

https://www.vox.com/2021/3/2/22309326/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-brnovich-democratic-national-committee-carvin-brett-kavanuagh

"SNIP......

Two separate teams of Republican lawyers looked at Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, a case the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday, and saw an opportunity to stick a knife in the Voting Rights Act — potentially eliminating any meaningful safeguards against racist voting laws in the process.

The case involves two Arizona laws that make it harder for some voters to cast a ballot. One law requires election officials to discard ballots that are cast in the wrong precinct. The second prohibits many forms of “ballot collection,” where a voter gives their absentee ballot to another person, who then delivers that ballot to the election office so it can be counted.

Michael Carvin, a lawyer for the Arizona Republican Party, argued in his brief that states have broad power to enact laws restricting the “time, place, or manner” where voters cast their ballots — though he rapidly backpedaled after Justice Elena Kagan suggested that this proposed rule would allow a state to require all voters to cast their ballots at, say, country clubs.

Arizona’s Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich, meanwhile, suggested in his brief that states that wish to disenfranchise voters of color may take advantage of existing demographic disparities to target racial minorities, so long as the state does not create those disparities. As Brnovich argued, the restriction on out-of-precinct voting should be upheld because “the fact that a ballot cast by a voter outside of his or her assigned precinct is discarded does not cause minorities to vote out-of-precinct disproportionately.”

......SNIP"

[Thekaspervote]

1. The last paragraph pretty much sums up these evil fascist pigs!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. GOP attorney accidently told the truth-the only reason for these laws is to steal elections

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[DFW]

4. What the Republican justices never ask but should

If they were truly interested in rendering an unbiased opinion, they should take the Republican lawyers‘ argument at face value: „We need to prevent certain groups from voting, because if all citizens are allowed to vote, we lose.“

I‘m still waiting for Justice Phony Carrot to ask, „Why isn‘t it easier to present a more appealing message to all voters and let them vote for you for presenting the better platform? Aren‘t you merely setting up the day in the future when you are right back here arguing against restrictions the Democrats are trying to impose on you, using your very arguments here as precedent?“

But expecting THAT from a Trump-appointed justice is like waiting for Godot.

[UTUSN]

5. K&R

[uponit7771]

6. MAGA Cult is ***NOT INTERESTED IN DEMOCRACY !!!***

[Deminpenn]

7. Kagan's question

Michael Carvin, a lawyer for the Arizona Republican Party, argued in his brief that states have broad power to enact laws restricting the “time, place, or manner” where voters cast their ballots — though he rapidly backpedaled after Justice Elena Kagan suggested that this proposed rule would allow a state to require all voters to cast their ballots at, say, country clubs.

She should've substituted AfAm churches for country clubs and the GOP lawyer's would have done a 360 degree spin.

[Marcuse]

8. Neo grandfather clauses, literacy tests and poll taxes.

[lagomorph777]

9. Need to support HR1