Talk about saying the quiet part out loud, this guy just did a primal scream — granted, we all know how voter suppression and gerrymandering work. Telling it to Amy Coney Barrett on the record is something else entirely and that is what GOP lawyer Michael Carvin did at today’s Supreme Court hearing on the Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee case. And Barrett cut him off, doubtlessly in shock at what she’d heard and afraid at what he might say next.
In voting rights case, Justice Barrett asks GOP lawyer Michael Carvin “what’s the interest” to Republicans in keeping voting restrictions in AZ.
Carvin: “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game.”pic.twitter.com/In7GULkSUb
— The Recount (@therecount) March 2, 2021
As Republicans push massive voter suppression laws across country, they admit they can’t win without making it harder to vote https://t.co/btOcvSq6dQ
— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) March 2, 2021
At issue in the Supreme Court today was whether restrictive voting laws in Arizona violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And a Republican Party lawyer defending the restrictions couldn’t have made his intentions clearer.
Tuesday’s oral arguments in two cases—Brnovich v. DNC and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC—concerned the legality of “ballot harvesting,” a practice in which community activists collect ballots to boost voter turnout. The arguments also discussed an Arizona law that disqualified ballots cast in the wrong precinct. There’s no evidence of the voting fraud that these laws purport to limit, and voting rights activists say that the laws disproportionately limit Black, Latino, and Native American voters’ access to the polls. […]
Republicans’ intentions couldn’t be any clearer. It’s not about reducing fraud. It’s about keeping minorities from voting for Democrats.
It’s always good to have the cards on the table, isn’t it? The Republican party has been the minority party for some time now. They realize they can’t become the majority party through normal means — at least not when they’ve got no policies or platform, just hyperbole and revanchist rhetoric to stand on.
Conservatism as that term used to be understood is either 1) dead; 2) alive but in no way manifested by this current iteration of the GOP. This is why American politics is so bolloxed up right now. It’s not the usual competition of differing ideologies, rather it’s the ongoing outworking of the policies of the one political party that is functioning, juxtaposed against the death throes of a contentious faction of the other party, flailing to regain some balance and carry on as a whole.
Mark my words: COVID is still the overwhelming priority for the Biden administration to work on and that will probably be the case the rest of this year. But when that matter is handled, the next big topic of contention in this country is going to be voters’ rights. That is the next great awakening, great realignment, call it what you will, to come. You don’t need to crystal ball to figure this one out.
While states administer elections, there need to be some nationwide standards that are set in solid neutronium! Such as voter must be registered at their actual residence. That means where your legal place of residence is. So you cannot live in FL, and vote in DC or vice versa. For another, you cannot be purged from the list of registered voters unless you have moved to another district or state. I think that you get the idea, so that voting is relatively easy, and states cannot enact any legislation or rules to make it hard for legitimately registered voters to vote.
Agree with Nonya. The ability of states to purge voter rolls is based on the flimsiest and many would argue, racist grounds. It needs to stop. If a registered voter doesn’t vote in two or more elections, they should not be taken off the list. Voting is a fundamental right and civic responsibility. Voter suppression is just wrong.