Posts: 33,855
Threads: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Elections have consequences.
We will be living with the negative impact of the 2016 vote for decades to come.
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
Alito, writing for the majority:
“The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”
I’ve read this a number of times, and I still can’t understand it. A law that disproportionately disenfranchises a group of voters (under the pretense of “solving” a non-existent problem) doesn’t affect their voting rights?
:S
PS - for just one example, isn’t Alito’s statement equally true of a poll tax?
Posts: 40,656
Threads: 1,025
Joined: May 2025
pdq wrote:
Alito, writing for the majority:
“The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”
I’ve read this a number of times, and I still can’t understand it. A law that disproportionately disenfranchises a group of voters (under the pretense of “solving” a non-existent problem) doesn’t affect their voting rights?
:S
PS - for just one example, isn’t Alito’s statement equally true of a poll tax?
That's how they're able to nuance it. Technically, the hurdles impact everyone of any race. But states controlling County elections panels is a tremendous blow. Black and Latino people tend to live in the largest counties of course. Republicans "have" to control this in order to survive. You don't see any Republicans saying "hey, that's not cool." They all support the party's efforts. Democrats are too cool and too woke to be that focused.
We have distractions flowing through everyday. Look at how much energy they put into Brittany Spears' plight. Something that's literally none of our business.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
On her show, Deadline White House, Nicolle Wallace noted that in his majority opinion Alito said at one point that a difference of an "only one percent or so" disproportionate impact on black voters due to Arizona's new law wasn't significant enough to matter but later he said that this restriction was justified because of the state's interest in dealing with voter fraud - though voter fraud is essentially non-existent, even a near zero possibility of voter fraud was important enough for the state to address because even a few votes can change an election. :facepalm: