A significant moment during virtual arguments came when Arizona GOP lawyer Michael Carvin connected the validity of the Republican-backed laws to the party’s interest in winning elections.
When asked by Barrett what the state Republican Party’s interest in the case was, he replied: “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election.”
This has been running all over Twitter as if it’s some kind of indictment, but I don’t see it. When you bring a case, you have to demonstrate standing, and the Republicans standing is that they believe they’re harmed by people casting unlawful votes in Arizona.
And to be clear, they are claiming that someone broke the law. When someone breaks a law to your detriment, one of the remedies is to file suit.
I personally find the laws unjust, and would like to see them struck down, but this particular argument seems pretty standard and unremarkable to me.
No the key words are- competitive disadvantage. Somehow they are assuming there are a lot of unlawful votes (False) - and they are all for Democrats. (Also false)
Well, except that they’re claiming that there have been, or at least that there is a clear potential for unlawful votes, which would allow a Democratic candidate to unfairly win an election.
Just to be clear: I’m with @HMS_Irruncible here. I think the laws are bad, and I hope they’re struck down, but this specific claim is, in an of itself, perfectly reasonable.
Yes, I think you’re absolutely right there. There seems to be a widespread, inchoate sense among Republicans that Democrats are somehow “cheating”. Those claims are factually false. But the specific claim here, while based on false facts, is in and of itself perfectly reasonable. If Democrats are cheating, and unlawful votes are or probably will be, cast for them, that does directly harm Republican candidates, and Republican voters.
Well, yes, but: “If the Space aliens are really controlling us thru Lizard people, then hamsters may be endangered.”
When you do a Logic Syllogistic argument, and the first two lines are complete balderdash then the third line (conclusion) is also balderdash in that context.
So far, no one in this thread is arguing with that. What’s being argued (at least what I’m arguing) is that the argument made by the Arizona GOP’s lawyer is not an admission that the GOP is attempting to suppress legitimate votes.
He even said so. Yes, later on he tried to quibble and talk about imaginary “unlawful votes” and how they would certainly (a big fat lie) benefit only the Democrats.
I’ve heard the tape on NPR a few times but can’t find it now - there was a speech to a conservative conference (CPAP?) back in the 80’s that explicitly talked about how conservatives couldn’t win in an election where everyone voted. The speaker was very clear that voter suppression was a key factor in ensuring conservative victories. He laid out several concrete steps needed to follow, and it’s become a roadmap for the past 30-40 years of Republican tactics.
Now that was an admission. The quote in the OP is just weak sauce.
Let us said he said this - Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero sum game. (Justices : "Why is that?’) “Because reptile men from the planet Zoom would control the voters.”
Would you agree his answer is totally self serving and specious?
Right, but when you think about it, the idea of a vote, in and of itself, being “unlawful” is pretty damn boldly, underlined, capitalized anti-democratic. They’re not claiming that dead people are being registered to vote. They’re not claiming that people are voting in two different states or precincts. They’re just claiming that a vote by mail is “unlawful”. It’s absolute an indictment.
They’re claiming someone broke the law - so fucking what? Anyone can make a claim about election fraud.
If even people on your side can see the holes, this probably isn’t a smoking gun. Even if you’re right, and this is an admission, there’s no way that the side you need to convince will see it as such.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act.
It’s civil court; there is no such thing as a “smoking gun”, in the sense that there’s no guilty/innocent verdict as there is in criminal court.
But @HMS_Irruncible seems to be right- it’s just them saying that because politics is a zero-sum game (i.e. a vote cast for the other side is a vote not cast for my side), then any (presumably illegal) votes are liable to be cast for the other side, which leaves the GOP at a disadvantage. He’s just demonstrating standing- that it harms his side, and that they’re sufficiently connected to the case.
The actual hows and whys will come out in the court case itself.