While ā[p]roof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause,ā
Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265, rare is the modern case in which the government has been candid about its discriminatory motives.
See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553 (1999) (āOutright admissions of impermissible racial motivation are infrequent.ā);
Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1018 (1994) (acknowledging the shift away from ādirect, overt impedimentsā towardāmore sophisticated devices that dilute minority voting strengthā). Thus, when evaluating a discriminatory intent claim, a court must dig deeper and make a āsensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.ā
Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266.
In
Arlington Heights, the Supreme Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to guide this delicate investigation. Reviewing courts should consider: (1) the lawās historical background; (2) the specific sequence of events leading up to the lawās enactment, including any departures from normal legislative procedure; (3) the lawās legislative and administrative history; and (4) whether the lawās effect ābears more heavily on one race than another.ā
Id. at 266ā68. The Court further cautioned that, because legislative bodies are ā[r]arely . . . motivated solely by a single concern,ā a challenger need only demonstrate that āinvidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor.ā
Id. at 265ā66 (emphasis added). ā[T]he ultimate question,ā then, is whether a law was enacted ābecause of,ā and not āin spite of,ā the discriminatory effect it would likely produce.
McCrory , 831 F.3d at 220 (quoting
Pers. Admār of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979)).
So, using the Arlington Heights factors, a reasonable court should conclude what?
1. The law's historical background is WHAT? How is that relevant here? The Court points to GERRYMANDERING!!!! 
WHAT A BUNCH OF ******* HORSESHIT!!!
2. specific sequence of events leading up to the lawās enactment ? NO IRREGULARITIES
3. the lawās legislative and administrative history ?
Republican legislative leaders strongly disagreed with the Fourth Circuitās decision in
McCrory. Immediately after the courtās ruling was announced, Senate Leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore issued a statement criticizing it as a decision āby three partisan Democratsā with āthe intent to reopen the door to voter fraud.ā (See ECF No. 91-1 at 14 ā 15.) Speaker Moore would later opine that the Fourth Circuit āhas a more liberal political bent [and] acted outside of what has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in similar matters.ā (Id. at 15.) And in expressing his support for a constitutional amendment, Representative David Lewis, Chair of the House Committee on Elections, explained that ā[t]he reason we are asking voters if they want to do this or not is, frankly, we think we passed a good law before.ā (Id. )
So, disagreeing with the bullshit ruling of the opposition's judges is grounds to call the law discriminatory? Discrimination against Democrats?
Second, Republican lawmakers remained āa hundred percent committed to the idea of voter IDā after McCrory and set out to craft a new bill which would āmute future court challenges.ā (Id. at 16 (quoting Rep. Lewis).) The choice to put a voter-ID amendment before the public appears to have been motivated, at least in part, by a desire to insulate the future S.B. 824 from āinevitable [legal] challenges that will come from the left.ā (Id.) In floor debate, for example, Representative John Blust expressed his belief that a constitutional amendment was needed āso that the North Carolina Supreme Court canāt simply get rid of it by sayingāOh, the legislature just added an additional qualification to vote.āā (Id.)
So, trying to make a law meet constitutional muster IS NOW DISCRIMINATORY??? WHAT A BUNCH OF ******* BULLSHIT!!!
Third, the legislative history suggests that lawmakersā positions remained virtually unchanged between the time McCrory was issued and the time S.B. 824 was finalized.
So, because they still believed that a voter ID law was needed to stop voter fraud, there MUST be descrimination, RIGHT???
THIS IS COCKSUCKING BULLSHIT, DEMOCRATS!!! YOU ARE ******* CHEATING AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!
4. whether the challenged law ābears more heavily on one race than another.ā
In
McCrory, the Fourth Circuit concluded that
African Americans disproportionately lacked the kinds of photo ID required by H.B. 589. 831 F.3d at 231. This discrepancy was sufficient to establish a disparate impact for the purposes of an
Arlington Heights analysis ā not just for its standalone effect, but also for its contribution to the greater, cumulative disenfranchisement worked by H.B. 589ās various restrictions.
So, Democrats are saying one of the following:
(1) that Black people are too stupid to get a proper photo ID,
(2) that Black people should be allowed to vote more than once without the need to prove who they are, or
(3) Mexican nationals who have no voting rights in the U.S. should get to help Democrats cheat.
YOU CANNOT DENY THE BULLSHIT NATURE OF THIS RULING and this is not even the half of it!!!
