The Supreme Court’s “Breathtakingly Radical” New Approach to Election Law
In the weeks before Election Day, the court weighed in on more than a dozen cases in a way that many portrayed as a mixed bag for voting rights—allowing voting expansions to stand in some cases and sharply curtailing them in others. But that scorecard approach obscures the principal effect of the court’s rulings: In all of the cases, regardless of whether the Trump campaign won or lost, the justices quietly—yet dramatically—rolled back Americans’ voting rights in ways that could do permanent harm—that is, unless Congress steps in.
How DARE the courts require that federal elections are free and fair, require some proof of validity, and close the door on voter fraud!!! Racist!!! And there you have it, going forward it will no longer be easy to defraud the nation with an illegitimate result.
In the weeks before Election Day, the court weighed in on more than a dozen cases in a way that many portrayed as a mixed bag for voting rights—allowing voting expansions to stand in some cases and sharply curtailing them in others. But that scorecard approach obscures the principal effect of the court’s rulings: In all of the cases, regardless of whether the Trump campaign won or lost, the justices quietly—yet dramatically—rolled back Americans’ voting rights in ways that could do permanent harm—that is, unless Congress steps in.
The Supreme Court’s “Breathtakingly Radical” New Approach to Election Law
The justices won’t end up deciding the 2020 presidential race, but they have set the stage for a massive rollback of voting rights.
www.yahoo.com
How DARE the courts require that federal elections are free and fair, require some proof of validity, and close the door on voter fraud!!! Racist!!! And there you have it, going forward it will no longer be easy to defraud the nation with an illegitimate result.