Liberals Slam Supreme Court Decision Upholding Voter ID Law, Forget To Mention Key Detail

0
2803
Advertisement

The left is howling with rage over a recent Supreme Court decision on voter ID laws. Look, this is a hot button issue and what Rachel Maddow will not tell her adoring flock is that this decision was 6-2.

Kavanaugh sat out so two left-leaning judges agreed with the conservatives. The media was just looking for a story.

“Native Americans can live on the reservation without an address. They’ve lived in accordance with the law and treaties, but now all of a sudden they can’t vote. There is no good reason that a P.O. box is not sufficient to vote,” Standing Rock Chairman Mike Faith said in a press release.

“Why is it getting harder and harder for Native Americans to vote? This law clearly discriminates against Native Americans in North Dakota. Our voices should be heard and they should be heard fairly at the polls just like all other Americans,” he added.

Rachel Maddow bashed the decision:

That Senate race in North Dakota in 2012 was won by the Democratic 
candidate, won by Heidi Heitkamp, just barely. In 2012 in North Dakota, 
Heidi Heitkamp won that Senate seat by a margin of less than 1 percent of 
the vote.

And in a state with the population as small as North Dakota`s, that means
the absolute number of votes we`re talking about here is incredibly small. 
Heidi Heitkamp won that U.S. Senate seat in 2012 by a margin of less than 
3,000 votes statewide. But, again, look at how the vote came in.

I mean, if you`re a Democratic candidate, you know, you`re Barack Obama. 
You`re running in North Dakota. It`s a race – it`s not going to be all
that close. You`re not going lose in the end.

It`s probably still nice to get huge concentrations of Democratic votes in
majority Native American parts of the state, right? But if you`re Heidi 
Heitkamp, and you know it`s not going to be a blowout. You`re running a 
race that is close, that you might actually a chance to win.

If you are in a race that is as tight as that Senate race was in 2012, 
those couple of deep, deep, deep blue counties, those aren`t just nice. 
Those aren`t just heartwarming. That`s how you win, right?

It`s a statewide race. You get votes wherever you can. You chase them all
across the state. You try to appeal to as wide a group of North Dakotans
as you can. But in particular, it`s absolutely crucial in a close race
that you turn out the voters who you know are going to vote for you in
incredibly strong concentrations, right?

If there is any place in your state, you`re a Democratic candidate, I don`t
care who you are. If there is someplace in your state where you know
you`re going get more than 70 percent of the vote in that county, you have
to turn out the voters in that county. And Heidi Heitkamp did in 2012. 
And strong Native American support for Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota is a 
big reason why right now, there is a Democratic held U.S. Senate seat from 
that red state.

And the closeness of Heitkamp`s last race, the crucial support that she got
from Native American voters, that did not escape notice among Republicans. 
And in particular, among Republicans who are now making decisions about 
whose going to be allowed to vote this next time and who might find it 
exceedingly difficult to vote this next time.

She basically went on and on about how this was the end of democracy without mentioning it was a 6-2 decision.

In other words, not by party line. Ginsburg and Kagan dissented but this decision in no way was political. Much to the horror of the left who need a big bad conservative conspiracy to gin up support.

I would grant the application to vacate the Eighth Circuit’s stay because last-minute “[c]ourt orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (per curiam). The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the Secretary of State’s website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction. Reasonable voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election. If the Eighth Circuit’s stay is not vacated, the risk of disfranchisement is large. ” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here