Opinion
Featured Image
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

July 2, 2021 (American Thinker) – On July 1, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that Arizona did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when it required in-person voting to take place in the precinct to which the voter is assigned and limited collection of early-voting ballots to the U.S. Postal Service, election officials, family members, household members, and caregivers.

In overturning a Ninth Circuit en banc decision rejecting Arizona's voting requirements, Justice Sam Alito, for — let it be said — the six justices appointed by Republican presidents, recognized the legitimate interests of a state in preventing fraud and intimidation or pressure on voters.  Justice Alito noted that fraud does not have to be shown before a state can act to take legitimate measures to prevent fraud.  He also indicated that “disparate impact” must be shown to be significant before overturning a state's voting laws.

On the matter of “disparate impact,” Justice Alito pointed to the use of statistics to mislead, rather than to inform.  He observed that the Ninth Circuit found that twice as many minority voters cast ballots out of their assigned precincts as non-minority voters, based on 99.5% of non-minority voters compared to 99% of minority voters voting in their home precincts.  Justice Alito indicated that the more accurate picture focuses on the 99% for minority voters, not the difference between 0.5% and 0.0%.  That is to say, in absolute terms, the disparity between 99.5% and 99% is insignificant.  

Justice Alito noted that the dissent would treat any disparity as significant.  He also had some sharp words to say of the dissent by Justice Elena Kagan: 

[T]here is nothing democratic about the dissent's attempt to bring about a wholesale transfer of the authority to set voting rule from the States to the federal courts.

This observation might well be directed at House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Charles E. Schumer, who are pressing for legislation that would federalize elections.

The dissenters, all three appointed by Democrat presidents, would disregard a state's interest in preventing voting fraud, or voter intimidation, and enthrone a federal approach, supported, in reality, by the Democrat majorities in House and Senate, plus the Democrat president.  It is, therefore, difficult to escape the rank partisanship of the dissent in approving Democrat moves to increase, vastly, the numbers of voters who are registered Democrats.

One can expect howls of condemnation to come from zealous Democrat partisans like the New York Times and the Washington Post, which would use misleading statistics to exaggerate voter disparity and would dismiss rules against fraud if fraud has not been shown.  But on that expected argument from the undemocratic left, here is Justice Alito: “Fraud is a real risk that accompanies mail-in voting even if Arizona had the good fortune to avoid it.”  He commented, further, “A State doesn't have to wait for fraud to happen.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Protect U.S. election integrity and oppose dangerous H.R. 1
  Show Petition Text
31408 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 35000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

House Democrats, in a strict party-line vote, recently passed legislation to conduct a massive federal overhaul of America’s elections and voting protocols, making the inconsistency, confusion, and funny business that plagued 2020 the new, permanent norm in our country.

The bill is called H.R. 1 (also known, ironically, as the “For the People” Act), and, if passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate, will mark the beginning of a once-in-a-generation transfer of power from the people of our country to its politicians.

That’s we must act NOW, and implore our U.S. Senators to vote against this dangerous legislation when it comes before them for a vote.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition asking all U.S. Senators to oppose H.R. 1 as a matter of national importance.

Democrat sponsors have attempted to promote H.R. 1 as a bill to expand voting rights in America, but, in reality, it is the exact opposite.

Among the 791-page bill’s provisions are the following:

  • Transfer of control over congressional elections from state governments to the federal government, even though the Constitution explicitly states that such authority belongs solely to states.
  • Automatic voter registration, which would require every state to add all eligible citizens to their voting rolls (unless they manually opt out) under the law. This would, additionally, shield illegal aliens who are automatically registered to vote from prosecution, without making an affirmative declaration about the status of their citizenship.
  • Mandatory early voting in all 50 states for at least 15 days prior to an actual election, as well as unlimited ballot harvesting and a 10-day deadline extension past an election for mail-in ballots to be received and processed.
  • Mandatory, nationwide mail-in voting, without any requirement that individuals provide a form of personal identification upon applying for their mail-in ballot. This would also require that those individuals who request a mail-in ballot be automatically registered to receive mail-in ballots in every election to follow.
  • Transfer of control over drawing congressional district maps from each individual state’s legislature to “independent” commissions – another power reserved, in the Constitution, for states specifically.
  • Federal funding of campaigns, which would use taxpayer dollars to match campaign contributions made by Americans citizens to candidates for federal office at a rate of 600% (you read that right – your money, being used to fund campaigns and candidates you may not support, nor even have the chance to actually to vote for).

And, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

If H.R. 1 passes the Senate and goes to Joe Biden’s desk, the American people may never participate in a free, open, and fair election ever again.

It is, therefore, imperative that we act to save our Republic from this disastrous legislation NOW.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which urges all U.S. Senators to oppose the anti-democratic piece of legislation, H.R. 1, today.

And, after signing this petition, please CLICK HERE to DIRECTLY CONTACT your U.S. Senators by using the simple contact form LifeSite is providing, here. It is a simple, one-click process, and you don't even have to look up any of your Senators' contact information.

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Here’s the anti-people agenda of HR 1 on election reform' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/heres-the-anti-people-agenda-of-hr-1-on-election-reform

'Democrats’ horrifying ‘For the People’ Act would supercharge vote fraud, end America' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/democrats-horrifying-for-the-people-act-would-supercharge-vote-fraud-end-america

'The Democrats’ ‘For the People’ Act would make it impossible to hold free and fair elections in America' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/democrats-are-pushing-the-for-the-people-act-in-attempt-to-make-impossible-to-hold-free-and-fair-elections-in-america

**Photo Credit: Shutterstock

  Hide Petition Text

An observer might be excused for allowing that the Supreme Court's opinion in Brnovich was its way of throwing a sop to Donald J. Trump, conceding that fraud can occur by means of ballot collection, early mail-in voting — and out-of-assigned-precinct voting, with the added concession that mail-in votes just might result from intimidation or pressure on the voter. 

Now imagine the High Court's ruling if Merrick Garland had made it to the Supreme Court and Donald J. Trump had failed to be elected in 2016.  The ruthlessly partisan H.R. 1 and S. 1 would have been pronounced, effectively, by a totalitarian-trending Supreme Court of the United States.    

Some Democrats already are calling for court-packing.  What next?  A move by Pelosi to impeach Justice Alito?

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.