A GOP Lawyer Says the Quiet Part Out Loud in SCOTUS Voting Rights Case

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Voting is a fundamental right and one needs a good excuse/justification to limit voting rights. There the GOP attorney admitted that they had no such justification

Link to tweet

Tuesday’s oral arguments in two cases—Brnovich v. DNC and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC—concerned the legality of “ballot harvesting,” a practice in which community activists collect ballots to boost voter turnout. The arguments also discussed an Arizona law that disqualified ballots cast in the wrong precinct. There’s no evidence of the voting fraud that these laws purport to limit, and voting rights activists say that the laws disproportionately limit Black, Latino, and Native American voters’ access to the polls.

So Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a simple question for the lawyer defending the GOP-backed laws: “What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC here in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?”

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” the lawyer, Michael Carvin, responded. “Politics is a zero-sum game.”

Link to tweet

[RainCaster]

1. They sound rather proud of themselves

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. GOP attorney accidently told the truth-the only reason for these laws is to steal elections

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Twitter followup:

Link to tweet

[Bettie]

4. So, after it is put so baldly, so openly stated

will they rule that partisan advantage is allowable in crafting of law?

Will they rule that such laws are allowable only if they give advantage to Republicans?

How far are they willing to go?

I'm afraid they are ready to go a long way down that rabbit hole.