Inconvenient for some
Nina Totenberg says the Voting Rights Act is basically dead.
The U.S. Supreme Court for all practical purposes rendered the landmark Voting Rights Act a dead letter on Thursday.
The 6-to-3 vote was along ideological lines, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the decision for the conservative court majority, and the liberals in angry dissent.
At issue in the case were two Arizona laws. One banned the collection of absentee ballots by anyone other than a relative or caregiver, and the other threw out any ballots cast in the wrong precinct. A federal appeals court struck down both provisions, ruling that they had an unequal impact on minority voters, and that there was no evidence of fraud that would have justified their use. But on Thursday the Supreme Court reinstated the state laws, declaring that unequal impact on minorities in this context was relatively minor, that other states have similar laws, and that states don’t have to wait for fraud to occur before enacting laws to prevent it.
It’s no big deal, everybody else does it too, there’s no reason not to. The Supreme Court as teenage rebel.
Just because voting may be “inconvenient for some,” Alito wrote, doesn’t mean that access to voting is unequal.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh yes it does. That’s exactly what it means. As he knows perfectly well, of course.
Who is better equipped to deal with “inconvenient” voting rules? People with cars, money, nannies, upper level jobs that allow them free time whenever they need it? Or people without cars, without spare cash, without anyone to watch the kids, with zero at-will free time? You do the fucking math.
And “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 and equal opportunity to vote. ”
Yes it does. That is exactly what it means.
The mere fact that yesterday was hotter than today doesn’t mean that the temperature was higher.
The mere fact that water (in liquid state) is falling from the sky doesn’t mean that it’s raining.
The mere fact that I have a male body doesn’t mean that I’m a man.
The mere fact that I am located on a body of land (far smaller than any continent) that is surrounded by water on all sides doesn’t mean that I’m on an island.
The mere fact that Winston Churchill is dead doesn’t mean that he’s not alive.
Such infuriating nonsense.
I’ve always been fortunate to live within walking distance of my polling place; even when I was living in the inner city area of OKC, I lived in walking distance. And since I have usually had a government job (since I graduated college), I knew I could take off if I needed to. But I’m the type of voter they want: white, suburban middle class married woman. Except I don’t vote with my demographic, but there are few enough of us like me they can afford to let us vote.
I have worked hourly jobs for low pay while raising a child. Taking off to vote would mean losing hours, which means losing pay. The argument they used went like this: You aren’t working enough hours to keep you from voting. Trouble is, I was working three jobs, and they could all say that. And going to school, which is what I did: skipped a class. I hated doing that, but it was my only option.
A lot of the voters inconvenienced by this don’t even have that option. Multiple jobs is not unusual among the working poor. And each boss with the same argument.
What I’m saying. Adding new layers of difficulty always affects people with fewer resources, and that’s the goal. Republicans=the party of people with more resources; Democrats=the other party.
I say the other party because the Dems aren’t really the party of the workers or the poor or the targets of racism, but they do include people who fit those descriptions.
It appalls me how much Democrats still allow themselves to be fettered by their desire for an unrequited bi-partisanism that’s been dead for more than a dozen years. There are strong, forceful things they could do that would make for more effective communication and action that would still not entail descending to the level of dishonesty and sliminess of the Republicans. You can take the highroad and still play hardball. When the other side has been vicious and treasonous, there is little need to be self-efacingly polite and obseqiuous in your dealings with them. After all, some of these people wanted you arrested or worse on January 6. There’s no obligation for continued deference and respect for their feelings.