Yuck.
Well, if one wishes to be generous, call them weak people who are trying to take an ethically questionable shortcut (block opposing voters) rather than face the harder task of making their platform more appealing to the electorate overall.
I expect it’s inevitable when elected officials are allowed to control how elections are managed. If employees were free to write their own evaluations and set their own job requirements and salaries, we’d see comparable abuses.
Whatever the motive, changing rules in a way that disproportionately harms black voters is wrong, and justly violates the VRA.
Making it harder for anyone to vote is wrong. It is even moreso, however, when the recipient of the disenfranchisement is of a historically oppressed group.
Sure, though I’d suggest race doesn’t really matter (though it’s an easier sell if the society itself has a lot of racism in it, and American society certainly does). If through some statistical quirk, it was noted that left-handed people tended (i.e. 60% of the time) to vote for Party A for whatever reason, we’d look askance at Party B for trying to come up with strategies to discourage left-handed people from voting.
The identities of Parties A and B (as well as whatever distinct characteristic this bloc of voters has in common) shouldn’t matter to an ethical person - it’s clearly an immoral and undemocratic approach.
It’s telling that you didn’t write “better turnout” or “better fairness” but rather “better result.” I suppose the “better result” is the election of whomever Karl Rove and Sean Hannity tell you to vote for.
I prefer to let the appellate system work it’s process unimpeded by my direct intervention.
But I do not agree with her pronouncement.
Yes.
The phrases in quotation marks – they are quoting the legislature?
That never happened.
That’s seriously twisted, antidemocratic morality, but I guess at least you don’t try to deny it.
In some cases the legislature, in other cases the court. Which you could probably have found out for yourself.
Heh. Upon reading the actual transcript, I find that the above is a lie: the court did mention the timeline.
LOOK AT ME. I AM THE LAWYER NOW!
Our hopes for a speedy recovery.
According to the appeals court, it did. Slate quotes the legislature’s own arguments, though I’m still looking for a source for that.
Bricker is once again lying. I say “lying” rather than “wrong” because as a lawyer, Bricker could be expected to have read the court ruling, where the following is found:
The district court found that, prior to enactment of SL
2013-381, legislators also requested data as to the racial
breakdown of early voting usage. Id. at *136-37. Early voting
allows any registered voter to complete an absentee application
and ballot at the same time, in person, in advance of Election
Day. Id. at *4-5. Early voting thus increases opportunities to
vote for those who have difficulty getting to their polling
place on Election Day.
The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that
African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both
2008 and 2012. Id. at *136-38; see also id. at *48 n.74 (trial
evidence showing that 60.36% and 64.01% of African Americans
voted early in 2008 and 2012, respectively, compared to 44.47%
and 49.39% of whites). In particular, African Americans
disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting.
Id. After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly
amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting,
shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten
days.
I understand that Bricker might disagree with the legal opinion of the appeals court, but as far as I can tell he also thinks the appeals court is lying – the appeals court said explicitly that the legislature defended the provisions because it was concerned that black voters had too much access to the franchise. Am I correct, Bricker, that you think the appeals court is being dishonest in stating this?
Bricker, did you read this part of the court ruling? It disputes your A-D timeline – it says that “after receipt of this data” – after the legislature got the racial breakdown of the first week of early voting – they “amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting”. Are you saying that the appeals court is lying, or was your timeline mistaken?
Ok. Now point out what I said that is different than what you quoted, showing that I lied.
Bricker, please explain the following chain of quotes:
[QUOTE=Court Record]
As
“evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting,
the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours
across counties, including the fact that only some counties had
decided to offer Sunday voting. Id. The State then elaborated
on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday
voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and
“disproportionately Democratic.” J.A. 22348-49. In response,
SL 2013-381 did away with one of the two days of Sunday voting.
[/QUOTE]