Two SCOTUS decisions favoring the right
(1) The first:
The Supreme Court just delivered a big win to the Republicans in an Arizona voting rights case.
The 6-3 decision was written by Justice Samuel Alito. Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined in the majority with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer in the dissent, which was written by Kagan.
So, the nominally conservative wing of the Court held together on this one.
What it boils down to is the Court upheld the state’s ability to prohibit third-party collection of mail-in ballots, otherwise known as “ballot harvesting” and said that the state can also disallow votes cast in the wrong precinct.
That’s a huge blow against the Democrats because of how they have utilized ballot harvesting. Many believe that they are able to use it, perhaps questionably, to change the nature of elections. Republicans have been fighting against it for some time to make elections more secure.
Democrats had tried to argue that the restrictions disallowing votes in the wrong precinct were somehow racially discriminatory. The court rejected that argument and it’s a good thing. The very argument is itself racist — to suggest that somehow people of color don’t know what precinct to vote in.
Democrats will be mounting similar challenges to all the voting laws passed by states in the wake of the 2020 election, and will be calling them racist. Hopefully, this is a harbinger of how SCOTUS will rule on such matters.
In an Opinion issued today, the Supreme Court has stricken a California policy requiring disclosure of large non-profit donor information to state regulators. The case establishes the important principle that if you want to make, ahem, large donations to organizations like the Legal Insurrection Foundation, your identify would not need to be disclosed on a routine basis to state regulators…
This confidentiality of donor information is of great importance to Legal Insurrection Foundation and other right-of-center non-profits given the long and vicious history or supporters of conservative causes (whether non-profits or candidates) being harassed and targeted for cancelation. But some state charity regulators, including California, require that the entire Form 990, including Schedule B, be filed with the state when renewing state charitable registration.
The Court split 6-3 in much the same manner as in the other opinion.
“the Court upheld the state’s ability to prohibit third-party collection of mail-in ballots, otherwise known as “ballot harvesting” and said that the state can also disallow votes cast in the wrong precinct.”
A welcome ruling but of limited utility. Only strongly red state legislatures would be likely to implement those restrictions.
And any red state in which Dominion software is being used provides another proven avenue for fraud.
Locks are for honest people.
Now that the 2020 election has been ‘decided’, time will tell if a majority on the SC plans to address electoral fraud in future cases. I’m doubtful but would welcome being surprised.
In a number of previous cases its been my inexpert opinion that Kagan has been more honest and common sensical in her interpretation of the Constitution than the average Dem appointee justice. However, in the above Arizona case she purportedly wrote a scathing dissent because of RACISM or something.
I’m thinking that she drew the short straw.
The very argument is itself racist — to suggest that somehow people of color don’t know what precinct to vote in.
Perfect.
The RedState article you quoted calls it a “voting rights” case? What does holding honest elections have to do with “voting rights”? That sounds like leftist propaganda talk. I think my right to vote includes the right not to have my vote canceled out by a fraudulent vote.
Off topic but speaking of language use, I see where Ocasio-Cortez used the word “hysteria” the other day. I thought that word had long ago been banned for being misogynistic.
Don’t Cry For Me Argentina (or AOC), but according to redstate.com Marc Elias has the sads about this SCOTUS decision. Truly, Shirley, the sads.
I sense an onset of court packin’ in Congress. Justice!
does anyone know whether the Supreme Court stayed the ninth circuit Arizona decision during the 2020 election? if they did not this is closing the barn door after the horse got out. It would be a typical John Roberts maneuver.
@om – Jazz Shaw doesn’t think they’ll go there.
Yet.
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/07/01/about-that-court-packing-plan-nevermind-n399904
Steven Hayward has some shrewd comments about the behavior of John Roberts.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/finally-the-court-as-it-should-be.php
Hinderakor gives a good summary of the Charitable Donor case, concluding with this:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/supreme-court-foils-democrats-attack-on-conservative-nonprofits.php
If Hillary had won, the Arizona case would have just effectively enacted HR1, with your local federal district judge doubling as election administrator. It’s absolutely bonkers that the three progressives voted against Arizona.
Same with the California case. The record showed that the California AG office, under Kamala Harris, ACTUALLY DID LEAK THE DONOR NAMES and that some of the leaked donors actually did suffer harassment as a result. The ACLU and NAACP submitted amicus briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs and still the three progressives voted for California and held that there was no harm to the plaintiffs. Again, bonkers.
The world has gone mad. Six non-progressives on the Supreme Court is a blessing, no doubt, but that alone won’t save us.
As usual, excellent post and comments, but since when did voting integrity and privacy rights become “right wing”? They are both simply traditional American values, so perhaps correct your lede?
The Democrats’ hysterical meltdown regarding the decision to prohibit ballot harvesting…tells ye’ all ye’ need to know. (That is, if—somehow—ye’ didn’t know it already—since this is old, old news…especially, but not limited, to those living the Golden State.)
…Realizing that she’s not to everyone’s, um, taste—but GO TULSI!!!
To her great, great credit, Tulsi Gabbard spoke out forcefully before the last election against this blatant abuse of the electoral process…
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/29/tulsi-gabbard-raises-the-alarm-ballot-harvesting-has-allowed-for-fraud-and-abuse-n984786
but since when did voting integrity and privacy rights become “right wing”?
When the left hit on the strategy of packing the electorate via uncontrolled immigration and ‘finding’ uncounted ballots after close elections.
The contrast between NPR’s coverage of the TrumpCo CFO indictment and the SCOTUS ruling on Arizona was revealing. They lavished extensive attention on DETAILS of the supposed excesses of the CFO’s fringe benefits, with NO CONTEXT regarding the atypicality to such charges.
In contrast, NPR made no mention of the DETAILS of the ballot-harvesting (etc.) behavior that was the subject the Arizona lawsuit. The entire commentary was on a supposed CONTEXT of voter suppression, with racial overtones!
NPR and especially Nina Totenberg are execrable hacks!
Nina is a well polished coprolite.
NPR and especially Nina Totenberg are execrable hacks!
NPR has much better production values than commercial radio and they take an interest in stories with which commercial radio could hardly be bothered. In contradistinction to MacNeill / Lehrer, they never attempted to be a non-sectarian news service. Their founding director had been George McGovern’s campaign manager, and they have a long history of doing sketchy things (e.g. hiring political tourists to be their boots-on-the-ground reporters in Sandinista Nicaragua). Totenberg was the wife of a Democratic Senator. She’s also nearly 80 years old.
“Coprolite.” Thanks, om.