Because Trumpists are all about the cosplay: Person Woman Man Camera TV. Aren’t we in an age where US Senators pretend to be patriots while supporting an election nullification, and there’s all those 2020 instances of voter fraud, not.

(CNN) South Carolinian William Robert Norwood III is facing federal charges after allegedly telling a family member he assaulted and stole gear from police officers during the Capitol riot.

“I’m dressing in all black,” Norwood wrote under the name “Robbie” on January 5, the day before the riot and insurrection, according to text messages cited in an FBI affidavit. “I’ll look just like ANTIFA. I’ll get away with anything.”

After the riot on January 6, additional text messages obtained by the FBI show Norwood claimed he tested his theory.

www.cnn.com/…


The quiet part gets uttered out loud in SCOTUS. Your otherwise legal ballot in AZ could be nullified because the GOP needs to stop you from voting for Democrats.

Geolocating vote suppression: AZ GQP wants to nullify your ballot because you’re in the wrong place, or maybe you don’t belong here.

The government only wants to know where you are if you’re committing a crime like trying to overthrow it.

Hawley asks about geolocation data “for a friend.”


GOP rep Kinzinger rips Hawley for his ‘smug face’ at CPAC after Capitol riot: ‘There are five people dead’ and Hawley doesn’t want anyone investigating his crime scene.


The Arizona Republican Party’s brief claims that “race-neutral regulations of the where, when, and how of voting do not implicate § 2.” Taken to its logical extreme, this rule would give states virtually limitless power to suppress voting by imposing restrictions on the “time, place, or manner” where elections are held.

[…]

Perhaps recognizing that the strongest version of its proposed rule is untenable, the state GOP’s brief does suggest that only “ordinary” restrictions on “the time, place, or manner of voting” are permissible. But the brief provides no definition of the word “ordinary,” and it proposes no legal framework that could be used to distinguish “ordinary” restrictions from extraordinary ones.

Arizona Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich suggests replacing Gingles with a more workable two-step test, at least in cases alleging outright denial of the franchise. (Brnovich, for what it’s worth, suggests that Gingles should still apply to “vote-dilution cases,” but not to cases where voters are allegedly denied the right to vote altogether).

But Brnovich’s two-step test would also severely weaken the Voting Rights Act. He argues first that a plaintiff seeking to prevail under the results test must show that the challenged law “causes a substantial disparity in minority voters’ opportunity to vote and to elect their preferred candidates.” It’s unclear just how great this disparity needs to be in order to be “substantial,” but the facts of the DNC cases suggest that it would have to be quite substantial indeed.

A federal appeals court found that Arizona’s requirement that ballots cast in the wrong precinct must be tossed out caused 3,709 voters to be disenfranchised in 2016. And Native American, Hispanic, and African American voters were twice as likely to vote in the wrong precinct as white voters. But Brnovich argues that this level of disparity is not “substantial.”

If a court determines that an election law does create a “substantial disparity,” Brnovich then argues that the plaintiff must prove that this election law caused the disparity, but he would also impose an extraordinarily high burden on plaintiffs seeking to prove causation. “There is no causal chain between the out-of-precinct policy and the alleged disparate impact,” in the DNC cases, Brnovich claims, because “the fact that a ballot cast by a voter outside of his or her assigned precinct is discarded does not cause minorities to vote out-of-precinct disproportionately.”

Think about this claim for a second. Brnovich is arguing that, if a state takes advantage of a preexisting disparity between white and nonwhite voters, in order to limit voting by racial minorities, the state’s actions are lawful unless the state caused the disparity to exist.

A state could, for example, attempt to limit the franchise to country music fans — on the theory that white people are more likely to listen to country music than people who are not white — and such a restriction wouldn’t violate Brnovich’s theory of the Voting Rights Act unless the state actually caused non-white people to prefer other genres of music.

Or, to give a more realistic example, in 1890, the state of Mississippi enacted a literacy test for voters. It was a major attack on African American voting rights because, at the time, only 7.7 percent of white voters in the United States were illiterate, while nearly 57 percent of Black voters were. Yet, under Brnovich’s framework, such a literacy test wouldn’t violate the Voting Rights Act’s results test because the fact that illiterate citizens couldn’t vote did not cause the majority of Black citizens to become illiterate (though a literacy test would still violate other provisions of the law).

Either the GOP’s framework or Brnovich’s, in other words, would wind up legalizing extraordinarily restrictive attacks on the franchise.

www.vox.com/…

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1366750105555111937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
OTOH maybe you’re just a logger worrying about the Lorax.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x