SCOTUS Election Laws Hearing

Leo123

Leo123

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
39,728
Reaction score
32,914
Points
2,915
Leo123 said:
"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.
therightscoop.com

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

therightscoop.com therightscoop.com
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leo123 said:
"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.
therightscoop.com

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

therightscoop.com therightscoop.com
Click to expand...
The recent election IS over. Whatever may come of this could effect future elections, but not 2020. That ship has sailed.
 
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....
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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...“
 
15th post
You must log in or register to reply here.

Biden refuses transparency. Will not release attendees of White House meetings.

< Previous Thread

Biden supports "independent review" of Cuomo sexual assault allegations. Opposes independent...

Next Thread >

Similar threads

EvilEyeFleegle
Next stop Supreme Court? Trump loses $83 million appeal in Carroll case
2
Replies
38
Views
519
Chuz Life
Chuz Life
berg80
You gotta hand it to them, R's play the long game.
2 3
Replies
48
Views
791
ColonelAngus
ColonelAngus
berg80
trump leaves another victim in his wake.
2
Replies
33
Views
478
Nuthin' Fancy
N
DigitalDrifter
Obama-appointed judge reverses course, rules voter ID law isn't discriminatory in GOP win
Replies
5
Views
285
Independent thinker
Independent thinker
JBG
  • Poll Poll
Should trans-gender nudity be forced on 13 year old females?
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
1K
Zebra
Z

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom