Wait a minute – the attack upon voting rights is not as simple as the SCOTUS wants to make it. The recent Supreme Court decision upholding Arizona provisions of law (see Alito’s rendering if them immediately below) that place limits or restrictions on voters to “protect against fraud” in elections, is not just anti-democratic. It is not solely a question of voter suppression although that will be its immediate effect.
No, its seriousness goes much deeper. Let’s explore a few of the clues contained
within Justice Alito’s brief for the Court majority. It goes to the heart of
FAMILY and COMMUNITY VALUES. Conservative
Justice Alito outlined the AZ law's provisions as follows:
“First, Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a
county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they
are assigned based on their address. See §16–122; see also §16–135. If a voter
votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted”
“Second, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona House
Bill 2023 (HB 2023) makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker,
an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household
member to knowingly collect an early ballot— either before or after it has been
completed. §§16–1005(H)–(I)“), the phrase “in that” is “used to specify the
respect in which a statement is true.” New Oxford American Dictionary 851. Alito then propounds the following:
“…equal openness and
equal opportunity are not separate requirements. Instead, it appears that the
core of §2(b) is the requirement that voting be “equally open.” The statute’s
reference to equal “opportunity” may stretch that concept to some degree to include
consideration of a person’s ability to use the means that are equally open. But
equal openness remains the touchstone. Pp. 14–15. (3) Another important feature
of §2(b) is its “totality of circumstances” requirement. Any circumstance that
has a logical bearing on whether voting is “equally open” and affords equal
“opportunity” may be considered. Pp. 15–21”
“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 an equal opportunity to vote. And small
disparities should not be artificially magnified.”
“Section 2 of the VRA provides vital protection against
discriminatory voting rules, and no one suggests that discrimination in voting
has been extirpated or that the threat has been eliminated. Even so, §2 does
not transfer the States’ authority to set non-discriminatory voting rules to
the federal courts. Pp. 21–25. (c) Neither Arizona’s
out-of-precinct policy nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA.
Pp. 25–34
“(1) Having to
identify one’s polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed
the “usual burdens of voting.”
s. Considering
the modest burdens allegedly imposed by Arizona’s out-of-precinct
policy, the small size of its disparate impact, and the State’s justifications,
the rule does not violate §2.
“(2) Arizona’s HB 2023 also passes muster under §2.
Arizonans can submit early ballots by going to a mailbox, a post office, an
early ballot drop box, or an authorized election official’s office. These
options entail the “usual burdens of voting,” and assistance from a statutorily
authorized proxy is also available. The State also makes special provision for
certain. See §16–549(C). And here, the plaintiffs were unable to show the
extent to which HB 2023 disproportionately burdens minority voters.
Even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a disparate
burden caused by HB 2023, the State’s “compelling
interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures” would suffice
to avoid §2 liability. “
“a State may take
action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within its own
borders. Pp. 30–34. (d) HB 2023 was not enacted with a
discriminatory purpose, as the District Court found.”
“The court found HB 2023 to be the product of sincere
legislative debate over the wisdom of early mail-in voting and the potential
for fraud. And it took care to distinguish between racial motives and partisan
motives.”
In response, let us look more
carefully at the values this decision undermines.
1) If
you believe in protecting your family and your community, this decision
says that small disparities should not be artificially magnified.”
In other words,
when a family member or your community experiences a small setback in their
lives because of government interference or mandate, you shouldn’t get upset.
Is that the way
that strong fathers (or nurturing parents) conduct themselves, by ignoring small
interferences with their family members’ prosperity? I doubt it.
Yet here is the
Supreme Court denying the importance of strong protection for voters who are
members of families and communities.
One strike against
conservative value by a conservative Court.
2) If
you believe that interference of government with your self-interest
and your ability to prosper (or your pursuit of fulfillment/happiness) is of
primary importance, then this decision is not in your favor. Look what it says:
the State’s
“compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures”
would suffice to avoid §2 liability. “
“a State may
take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within
its own borders.
Just think about it: this conservative Court is telling you that the State’s interest trumps your interest in running your own life, taking your own responsibility, and prospering by using your own capabilities to the maximum. The Court says it’s okay for the State to control your march toward independence and fulfillment even if no good reason other than "equal openness" exists.
Put another way, it means that the conservative Court has given the green light to search out fraud or illegal misdoing in your affairs even though there is no evidence to back-up that suspicion.
Strike two against
conservative principle by the conservative Court.
Listen to what it
says:
“Neither
Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of
the VRA”
“Having to
identify one’s polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed
the “usual burdens of voting.”
Considering the
modest burdens allegedly imposed…”
Take, for example, the charging of property taxes in certain areas where property owned by black and white homeowners in contiguous areas are startlingly different for similar homes. In some areas of Detroit, the difference is that black owners are assessed at 50% higher rates. Given the Supreme Court’s basis of “a usual or small burden” to determine the validity of voter restriction, is it just a matter of time before those out-of-kilter property rates for black homeowners are rendered totally acceptable because the burden for them is the usual cost of owning a home? You can probably count on it…
It is the third strike against conservative values by this conservative Court, leaving me to wonder whether the proclivity to side with the State rather than the voter is a bad omen for the strong-willed man (or nurturing parents) who want to protect the family, personal assets, and future well-being.
o
protecting your family
o
keeping government out of your life and
business, and
o
moving ahead with your moral aspirations toward
a fulfilling life if it decides that small burdens of controls, rules and
regulations can be borne by you.
In other words, the State can not
only impose regulations and requirements
on voters to prevent a fraudulent activity, but it could also take after your
enterprises if it thought they might be fraudulent or maybe illegal.
Conservatives and Progressives
alike have been bamboozled by this conservative Court because the values and
principles by which it functions have been undermined. And you thought this was simply about voting
rights….
Wrong – it is an attack on some family and community values that you have always understood as your moral foundation. Too bad you didn’t see it coming, but don’t fret – there will be more to come because this Court doesn’t want to protect your rights or your ambitions. Its mission is aimed toward protecting power, authority, and its own status as the only interpreters of the Constitution with the acquired ability to formulate (or re- interpret) ‘corrected’ laws from established ones. If you have not already read Justice Kagan’s dissent it is advisable to do so. She gets to the heart of the matter when she says:
"Maybe some think that vote
suppression is a relic of history — and so the need for a potent section 2 has
come and gone. ... But Congress gets to make that call." "That law, of all laws, should not be
diminished by this court."
The Court is not just protecting
State authority, it is protecting its assumed powers as the one branch of
government that controls the intent and the constitutional integrity of laws,
thus bringing to the fore, an assumption of primacy it does not have, as Kagan
implies. It is Congress, after all, that has the constitutional power to formulate
laws. It is the Court that has the role
of judging whether laws meet the standards of the Constitution or the intent of
the original legislation. The Constitution
does not grant SCOTUS the power to legislate new law or to base its judgments
of intent or constitutionality on rampant conspiracy theory or on phraseology
that begets abuse by state or federal governments.
In this case, the Court has rendered
a verdict based on a false assumption -- that discrimination against minorities
has disappeared enough -- to have rendered section
2 of federal voting law null and void, refusing to consider whether actual and “usual” burdens placed on some voters are indeed
consequential, and thus contribute to some voters’ inability to locate their
polling places and arrange to get to them.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority
have crowned themselves as interpreters of social history, while ignoring the protests
and expressions of racism and xenophobia that are everywhere in current
society. Their failure to protect the
most vulnerable, to unburden the most afflicted or to recognize disparity and
lack of opportunity based on race , is what can happen to principles and
morality when maintaining the Court’s power to say what is valid law and what
is not takes precedence over the real-life exigencies and burdens facing real
people.
We are now at the mercy of a Court
majority that places the will of the People in a secondary position while assuring
that States, corporations and a wealthy white aristocracy have the upper hand
and can maintain control over all matters political and economic.
The Supreme Court under
conservative theorists has long demonstrated its anti-democratic and
anti-minority biases and has often created havoc and chaos because of decisions
couched in language that attempts to hide or at least cover-up its betrayal of
democratic principles and ideals, and its moral indecency. (For more on this subject, consult the series
of books by Thom Hartmann entitled “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court
and the Betrayal of America”)
