You can obtain a pdf copy of the decision to read if you wish. I got mine from the CTH blog. There is a link there inside a post which discusses the decision.
In particular, I wanted to read the dissent of the liberals on the court. I read through some of what Justice Kagan wrote in dissent, and I find that it is lacking in persuasiveness.
How is it that a state that allows mail-in voting doing anything discriminatory? It is ridciculous to say that a state that allows mail-in voting at all is in any way being discriminatory.
Arizona's law seems to require a request for a mail-in ballot. If that is too onerous, then all laws in all states that require such a request could have been struck down. Perhaps that is what the liberals were hoping for.
The dissent belabored a lot of discrimination in the past, but from what I read, gave little reason to believe that the current law in Arizona does anything to make it too hard to vote for anyone.
If you can request a ballot by mail, presumably you can also mail the thing in by yourself. It doesn't seem to be a big deal that all you have to do is to fill it out and return it by mail. This may impact some people who have profound issues. However, how much can you do for people of that profound of disability who cannot even fill out and mail a ballot?
You don't have to be a minority to have an issue like that. A severely disabled person may not be able to get around well enough to vote, perhaps. But if it is that bad, how can they be competent enough to vote at all? One might expect at least some competence to exercise the vote.
Such a sentiment may seem unfair, but what can you do about it? The government can only do so much and shouldn't do any more. You cannot guarantee total fairness in all things. To suggest otherwise is silly. For example, it may be unfair that some people are paraplegic. If that impacts their ability to vote, perhaps you could help them. Even not helping isn't discriminatory against them. It's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.
The big concern here is about fraud. From what I read in the dissent, there appears to be no concern whatever that fraud could be used to change the outcomes of elections. Before this law could be overturned, it would have to show that fraud is not an issue. But fraud is most definitely an issue. The interest in having election integrity overrides fairness here. That's assuming you AGREE that it is unfair to some people. It should be a tall hurdle to get over in order to rule that an election must be totally fair to all people at all times.
In summary, the complaint did not satisfy a reasonable standard for fairness, nor did it appear to address fraud with respect to the dissent. If it did, then I failed to see it, but I didn't read it all. In my opinion, something else is going on with this complaint than meets the eye. There's no unfairness that I can see. It is almost if the interest of integrity is being tossed aside for the unreachable goal of total fairness. But that may be a guise that may allow the specter of fraud to appear.
If the left wants to be convincing to anybody but zealots, they had better do a whole lot better.
No comments:
Post a Comment