SCOTUS Election Laws Hearing

[Leo123]

"Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting"

Cases formerly rejected by AZ federal judge but 9th circuit reversed it and appealed to SCOTUS. Sorry Biden-babies.....It ain't over.

Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case involving a challenge to two election laws in Arizona and one of them deals with ballot harvesting: NBC NEWS – Two Arizona laws are at issue in the v…

therightscoop.com

 

[San Souci]

"Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting"

Cases formerly rejected by AZ federal judge but 9th circuit reversed it and appealed to SCOTUS. Sorry Biden-babies.....It ain't over.

Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case involving a challenge to two election laws in Arizona and one of them deals with ballot harvesting: NBC NEWS – Two Arizona laws are at issue in the v…

therightscoop.com

Maybe they will stop Mail-out ballots.

 

[Moonglow]

"Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting"

Cases formerly rejected by AZ federal judge but 9th circuit reversed it and appealed to SCOTUS. Sorry Biden-babies.....It ain't over.

Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case involving a challenge to two election laws in Arizona and one of them deals with ballot harvesting: NBC NEWS – Two Arizona laws are at issue in the v…

therightscoop.com

I bet you think it is about cheating, but it's not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting"

Cases formerly rejected by AZ federal judge but 9th circuit reversed it and appealed to SCOTUS. Sorry Biden-babies.....It ain't over.

Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case involving a challenge to two election laws in Arizona and one of them deals with ballot harvesting: NBC NEWS – Two Arizona laws are at issue in the v…

therightscoop.com

Reliably Left Roberts will join his fellow leftists on the court, regardless of the facts.

Let's see how Barrett acts. So far she has been a major disappointment to constitutionalists.

 

[konradv]

"Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting"

Cases formerly rejected by AZ federal judge but 9th circuit reversed it and appealed to SCOTUS. Sorry Biden-babies.....It ain't over.

Supreme Court to hear case over two election laws in Arizona, one of which deals with mail-in voting

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case involving a challenge to two election laws in Arizona and one of them deals with ballot harvesting: NBC NEWS – Two Arizona laws are at issue in the v…

therightscoop.com

The recent election IS over. Whatever may come of this could effect future elections, but not 2020. That ship has sailed.

 

[Rambunctious]

The dems stole the presidency but failed to overtake state legislatures in swing states...this is important because the dems will not be able to extend covid rules and mass mailout ballots in 22 and 24....
This was a one shot deal cheating Trump...I hope it was worth it libs because the democrat party will pay dearly....

 

[d0gbreath]

This was a one shot deal cheating Trump...I hope it was worth it libs because the democrat party will pay dearly....

We're quaking in our boots and partying at the same time!

 

[bendog]

The case is not about mail in voting, but it may affect changes to mail in voting in other states. What the case is about is can a state change voting to make it disproportionately harder for a minority group to vote, even when there is no evidence of cheating. Previously, a Roberts Court (with Roberts writing I believe) found southern states no longer have to get preclearance for changes, because Sec. 3 of the voting rights act prohibits changes with an adverse impact upon minorities.

This case tees up Sec 2 for the Supreme Court to essentially emasculate it totally. The people in the Navaho Nation Res don't have voting precints. They rely upon harvesting, where sealed ballots are collected and delivered to vote counting. AZ could not show any cheating, although the gop is known to have cheated in NC with voter harvesting, so obviously voter harvesting is less secure than in person voting. However, AZ could accomplish their stated purpose of preventing voter fraud by providing an alternative way to collect ballots on the Navaho Nation, which they chose not to do. So the effect of the change in law is to eliminate much of Navaho voting. The question is simply whether it is "ok" to change the law to make it harder for a minority to vote, despite no fraud being shown, and no attempt to use a change in voting to eliminate a potential for fraud while still not making it harder for the minority group to vote.

SCOTUSblog - Independent News & Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Amy Howe as usual is thorough in going through issues. Nina Totenberg below is "more easy to unnerstan."

Supreme Court Weighs Future Of Voting Rights Act : NPR

 

[Rambunctious]

This was a one shot deal cheating Trump...I hope it was worth it libs because the democrat party will pay dearly....

We're quaking in our boots and partying at the same time!

Dance you way to political purgatory....

 

[d0gbreath]

Dance you way to political purgatory....

I'm not Catholic.

 

[Rambunctious]

Dance you way to political purgatory....

I'm not Catholic.

Then skip purgatory and go straight to hell....

 

[bendog]

Does anyone doubt that the Sup Ct of the US will find that a state may pass a law that will result in fewer minorities being able to vote, even if the state's reason for the law could be achieved in another way without the effect of fewer minority people getting to vote?

 

[d0gbreath]

Then skip purgatory and go straight to hell....

At least I'm enjoying the ride.

 

[Rambunctious]

Then skip purgatory and go straight to hell....

At least I'm enjoying the ride.

Its not the ride that will get ya...its the sudden stop.....

 

[Kilroy2]

Well it is predictable on who will shot it down and who will give it a thumbs up. It will be interesting to see if it makes it when it heavily favors republicans.

 

[JWBooth]

Majority ruled sensibly in the Arizona case. “Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the “usual burdens of voting.” On the contrary, these tasks are quintessential examples of the usual burdens of voting...“