The Supreme Court is ready to gut what's left of voting rights. How will Manchin and Sinema respond?
newsdepo.com
«What's the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?» Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Michael Carvin, the lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court Tuesday on behalf of Arizona RepuThe Supreme Court is ready to gut what's left of voting rights. How will Manchin and Sinema respond?
«What's the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?» Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Michael Carvin, the lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court Tuesday on behalf of Arizona Republicans that two of the state's voter suppression laws should be upheld. He answered truthfully: «Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it's the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.» What that transcription doesn't include is how Barrett was desperate to cut him off in the middle of that last sentence. Because there he was, saying the part that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court really doesn't want to be said out loud: if Republicans can't keep people from voting, they can't win, and they are counting on the courts to help them do that. Which the Supreme Court conservative majority is very likely to do. Consensus among those who followed the questioning from the justices is that the discriminatory laws will be upheld, and that voting rights are in for a serious blow. That brings us back to one critical truth for Senate Democrats: it's either voting rights and a functioning democracy (not to mention Democrats being elected in the future) or a preserved filibuster. Read more