![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/07\/constitution.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The laws in question are designed to prevent the tools used by the Democratic CommuNazi Party to basically commit election fraud. The Progressives, once the laws were passed and signed into law, were promptly challenged byt the Liberal using their favored claims, that it\u2019s racist and will stop minorities from voting. Here are the details from CNBC<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n The Supreme Court on Thursday, (July 1st<\/sup>), ruled 6-3 along partisan lines to uphold Arizona voting rules supported by Republicans that Democrats alleged unlawfully discriminated against the state\u2019s Native American, Hispanic and Black voters. <\/b><\/p>\n The case concerned two Arizona voting rules that a federal appeals court found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act, citing their disproportionate impact on minorities. In an opinion for the court\u2019s majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that neither rule violated the civil rights law.<\/b><\/p>\n The appeals court was the 9th<\/sup> Circus, and as expected, they sided with the Progressive Liberal Democratic CommuNazis. Even with the good work of President Trump, the Moonbat class of judges still rules the roost, which is why they are consistently slapped down by the Supreme Court. (In a few cases unanimously) Now the two laws that were challenged blocked two things near and dear to what passes for the Progressive heart. Ballot harvesting and voting outside of your precinct.<\/p>\n One of the measures, known as the \u201cout-of-precinct policy,\u201d disqualifies ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day. The other measure, known as the \u201cballot collection law,\u201d forbids most people except for family members to collect and deliver ballots to the polls. Republicans often refer to third-party ballot collection as ballot harvesting. <\/b><\/p>\n Ballot harvesting is probably the bigger of the two. It allowed the Democrats to send in activists to places like nursing homes and \u201cPick up the residents ballots in \u201cSealed\u201d envelopes.\u201d In many cases, the number of ballots far exceeded the number of residents, and frankly, a fair number of the residents were not mentally capable of casting a vote. Not surprising anyone, all of these ballots tended to go straight Democrats with not a single vote for the Republican candidates.<\/p>\n The Democratic National Committee challenged the two measures under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires elections to be equally open to people of all races. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the DNC. <\/b><\/p>\n The full appeals court said in a ruling last year that the out-of-precinct policy had a discriminatory impact on Native American, Hispanic and Black voters in Arizona. With regard to the ballot collection law, the court said that the circumstances \u201ccumulatively and unmistakably revealed\u201d that racial bias was responsible for its enactment. <\/b><\/p>\n The excuse used by the 9th<\/sup> Circus was that about 1% of the ballots cast by Indians<\/i><\/span> Native Americans, Blacks and Hispanics were cast in the wrong precinct. About .5% of Whites made the same mistake. As far as the moonbats on the 9th<\/sup> Circus were concerned, it\u2019s \u201cRACISM!!\u201d However, Justice Alito, who wrote the decision, disagreed.<\/p>\n \u201cA policy that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies \u2014 minority and non-minority alike \u2014 is unlikely to render a system unequally open,\u201d Alito wrote. <\/b><\/p>\n How people voted in the wrong precinct can probably be laid to ignorance on where their actual polling place is, and that when they arrived at what they thought was their precinct, they did same day registration. (I\u2019m also opposed to same day registration. You literally have years to go in and register. If you can\u2019t be bothered, then tough. You\u2019re to lazy or stupid to vote)<\/p>\n On the ballot collection measure, Alito said that Democrats failed to show that the law had a disparate impact at all. Even if the law did have such an impact, he wrote, that would not be enough to make the law invalid under the Voting Rights Act, given the state\u2019s interest in setting its election rules. <\/b><\/p>\n That last bit, \u201cgiven the state\u2019s interest in setting its election rules\u201d is going to be a shot across the bow of the CommuNazis pushing H.R. 1 and S. 1. It reaffirms that the election process is a state matter, not a federal one unless there is clear proof that the state is actively preventing people from voting due to skin color, religion, etc. This and other similar laws do not do this.<\/p>\n In a dissent joined by Breyer and Sotomayor, Kagan called the majority decision a tragedy. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cWhat is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten \u2014 in order to weaken \u2014 a statute that stands as a monument to America\u2019s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses,\u201d Kagan wrote. \u201cWhat is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about \u2018the end of discrimination in voting.\u2019\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n Those three have consistently proven that they are unfit to be on the bench, should never have been confirmed and frankly, should be removed. It\u2019s long past time that judges and justices face impeachment for repeated and willful violations of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Republicans are celebrating the victory of the Rule of Law and the Constitution.<\/p>\n Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, said in a statement that the decision was a \u201cresounding victory for election integrity and the rule of law.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cDemocrats were attempting to make Arizona ballots less secure for political gain, and the Court saw right through their partisan lies. In Arizona and across the nation, states know best how to manage their own elections,\u201d McDaniel said. <\/b><\/p>\n The decision marks the first time that the court has considered how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to state laws that govern ballot collection and counting. In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the top court weakened a separate provision of the law, which had mandated that localities with histories of discrimination receive federal clearance for new voting measures. <\/b><\/p>\n The problem with the Voting Rights Act is that a fair part of it is questionable under the Constitution. This is why the courts have been ruling against sections of it. This isn\u2019t to say that entire law is unconstitutional. However, it may also be time to fully review it. It was passed almost 60 years ago and frankly, everything has changed. Of course, the Maladministration of the Fake President is rather unhappy with the ruling.<\/p>\n President Joe Biden<\/a>\u2019s Department of Justice has pledged to increase its focus on voting rights as a result of the Shelby County decision, as well as the new election bills. Last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was doubling his staff<\/a> dedicated to voting rights enforcement. <\/b><\/p>\n Look for Garland\u2019s Goons to go all in on suppressing the Conservatives and the Deplorables.<\/p>\n Biden said in a statement that he was \u201cdeeply disappointed in today\u2019s decision by the United States Supreme Court that undercuts the Voting Rights Act, and upholds what Justice Kagan called \u2018a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities.\u2019\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cIn a span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 \u2013 a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure,\u201d Biden said. <\/b><\/p>\n A law that may no longer be applicable. The VRA was passed with good intentions, and also with some need. The southern states of the old Confederacy were actively suppressing black voters. The thing is, those people who were doing this are long since dead, and the natural migration of Americans from one region to another has changed things. What Biden\u2019s handlers are angry about is that they can no longer use the VRA as a tool to rig elections. Of course, the Progressives are saying this hurts voting rights and that they should be allowed to continue stuffing the ballot box.<\/p>\n In a statement issued after the court\u2019s decision was released, American Civil Liberties Union voting rights attorney Davin Rosborough said<\/b>\u201d <\/b><\/strong>the court\u2019s narrowing of Section 2 is especially disturbing given its importance in combating voter suppression laws that disproportionately harm communities of color.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n