- a vote cast for the other side is a vote not cast for my side= true.
2.then any (presumably illegal) votes are liable to be cast for the other side,= not true.
Thanks … but what about the unlawful interpretations part? I’m not getting how efforts to make voting accessible can be viewed as unlawful interpretations of a law that prohibits discrimination.
I agree, but what does that have to do with with my use of the word “inchoate”?
The Democratic National Committee is suing the State of Arizona under Section 2 of the VRA to overturn two provisions of Arizona’s voting laws. The GOP lawyer is saying that the interpretations of Section 2 that are being advanced by the DNC to argue that those provisions should be nullified are not actually in accordance with the law in question, i.e., they are unlawful. I’m not a law-talking guy, so I don’t know if he’s using the term “unlawful” there how it’s usually used in this context. He’s also saying that if these “unlawful” interpretations are applied to the Arizona provisions in question, his clients, the Arizona Republican Party, will suffer irreparable harm.
Yes, the unspoken part of the Republican position is;
“There are perfectly reasonable methods of voting that we don’t like, because they enfranchise more Democrat voters than Republican voters; therefore we will pass laws to make those methods illegal and disenfranchize those people.”
If you leave that unspoken part out, the part about how and why those voting methods are illegal, it makes it sound quite reasonable to claim that “illegal” voting is placing you at an unfair disadvantage.
Okay, so “unlawful” doesn’t mean “illegal,” it means something like “not defined by or in accordance with this specific law.” (IANAL, obviously.) But it also conveniently (to the even more uneducated than me) sounds like the DNC is blatantly pushing to allow illegal votes.
Thanks for fighting my ignorance!
But by demonstrating standing, he is saying that the DNC’s (and presumably GOTV activist) interpretation of a voting rights law that is intended to ‘err’ on the side of expanding the vote, “lawful” or not, hurts the Republican party.
How is this not an outrageous admission that the Republican party feels threatened by expanding voting? Again, they’re not claiming that their opponents register dead voters, stuff ballot boxes, hack voting machines, intimidate Republican voters, or any of that. Yes, the statement is just trying to establish standing – I get that.
But think about that: standing to do what? Standing to claim that they are “injured” by those who are using a decades-old voting rights law to thwart state-level efforts to interfere with voters’ rights to cast a legal ballot.
They are arguing (please note: I am not agreeing with their argument) that the Arizona provisions in question prohibit procedures which are ripe for fraud and abuse. They are simply not arguing that expanding voting per se should be prohibited. They are arguing that specific means, such as “ballot harvesting”, where someone can collect ballots from multiple other individuals to take them en masse to a post office or elections board, are so prone to fraud and abuse that to allow them is tantamount to enabling election fraud, that the Arizona provisions in question which outlaw such methods are simply election security provisions which are neutral on their face, and that allowing them to be challenged until Section 2 of the VRA is a misapplication of the law.
Having said that I think we all agree that if there was an invisible, undetectable method for fraud and abuse they would be using it rather than bitching about it.
Maybe it’s not being said outright in the Court, but Lindsey Graham makes it pretty clear:
“Mail-in balloting is a nightmare for us,” Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News on Nov. 8, referring to a form of voting that had been used securely with little controversy for years but was used more often by Democrats in 2020. Graham said that without changes, “we’re never going to win again presidentially.”
Appearing again on Fox News on Nov. 9, Graham said Senate Republicans would conduct “oversight” of mail-in balloting because “if we don’t do something about voting by mail, we’re going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country.”
IOW, Republicans cannot win some elections without voter suppression tactics, such as reducing vote-by-mail, reducing polling places, reducing polling hours, gerrymandering, scrubbing voter lists, etc. For the country who touts itself as a model of Democracy, we sure make it hard for ALL Americans to vote easily.
No, since the GOP is currently using fraud more often than the dems.
And not the first prominent Republican to say so explicitly, of course. Here’s Mike Lee last October:
Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospe[r]ity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.
Yes, this is certainly correct (that this is what the lawyer is trying to say).
The part I don’t quite follow is why a particular political party (the GOP) has standing here. Wouldn’t they have to show that the potentially fraudulent votes are likely to hurt their party rather than the other party? Can they really just say “more voters is bad for us”?
To put it a different way, for the GOP to be harmed by the repeal of these laws don’t they have to basically admit that these laws will reduce the votes of a group of voters that are less likely to vote GOP? What basis do they have to make that claim, other than the race of those voters? And if it is based on the race of those voters, isn’t that an admission that the laws in question run afoul of Section 2?
The assertion that allegedly illegal votes produce a net advantage for Democrats is equivalent to an admission that the law is so crafted as to generate a net advantage for Republicans. If it were a legitimate impartial rule of election administration, neither rigorous nor slapdash enforcement would produce any net advantage or disadvantage for either side.
Well, that’s why we take things to the Supreme Court. They ultimately decide if cases were properly judged, or if the law under question is just crap.
It’s in the GOP’s interests to do them because winning helps claw them back a few votes, and add teeth to other similar laws, but a loss will leave a ton of other bullshit anti-voting laws on the books.
Well, not necessarily. If it could be proven, for example, that there were large amounts of fraudulent votes due to ballot harvesting (as one example) and that those fraudulent votes were overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, then I would say the GOP has standing to sue*.
But I never saw him claim that was the case. I’ve heard of a few cases in TX, and a new one in TX was for about 150 votes or so. But that second case was a Republican official that was indicted.
So I don’t really understand the leap from “these laws will prevent fraud” to “this fraud will harm the GOP”.
ETA* - “sue” was the wrong word here. They would have standing to be a party to the defense of the laws banning ballot harvesting.
It’s an easily demonstrable fact that mail-in ballots in pretty much every jurisdiction trend strongly Democratic. I think it’s also pretty widely accepted that “ballot harvesting” is mainly conducted by and among Democrats. If, as Republicans tend to argue, these procedures are so insecure as to make it a virtual certainty that significant fraud must be taking place, or at least that it’s so likely that we must act as if it’s taking place, then by definition Democrats will benefit disproportionately from such fraud.
NOTE: I am not defending the premise that mail-in ballots and “ballot harvesting” are so insecure we must assume fraud.
I think what is happening is that there is a clash of mutually contradictory “self-evident truths”.
I think that many Republicans truly have a genuine if inchoate sense that Democrats are cheating. I think if you drill down, and in many cases it would be a very shallow well, you’d find an inchoate sense that “the wrong people” are voting. Even then, I don’t think it’s so much conscious racism as motivated reasoning driven by generalized anxiety over demographic and cultural shifts, and the resulting loss of collective influence in presidential elections.
But the result of all of that motivated reasoning is that to many Republicans, it’s a self-evident truth that mail-in balloting, “ballot harvesting”, and other measures are so insecure that they must result in fraud. Opposing “common sense” ballot security measures seems so ridiculous to them that they take Democratic opposition to such measures as a de facto admission that Democrats are exploiting those ballot “insecurities” to cheat. Otherwise, why would they oppose such self-evidently necessary ballot security measures?
On the other side many Democrats think that it’s self-evident that no widespread ballot fraud is taking place. It’s also self-evident that the only practical effect of Republican “ballot security” measures will be to suppress the vote of marginalized, Democratic-leaning groups. Therefore, Republican arguments that they are being electorally disadvantaged by mail-in ballots, “ballot harvesting”, and so forth are de facto admissions that “ballot security” measures targeting those procedures are in fact deliberately targeted “voter suppression” measures “just to win elections.”
This is absolutely correct. I’ve had conversations with my wife and others about this. One person’s obvious security measures (mandatory ID, for example) is another persons infringement of basic democratic rights, and perhaps even underlying racism.
There is so much mistrust and ascribing of nefarious motives to the other side’s position that compromise, and even rational debate, is dead.
I think your last paragraph is right on too on why the quote from the OP tweaks people. Because it basically is an admission that at its root the reason the GOP cares about ballot security is to win elections. It’s a statement that “we believe the other side will cheat unless we make it hard for them to do so”, without any consideration of the fact that GOP operatives might cheat too. Which is a pretty shitty way to view other Americans.
Can you provide a cite for this? It may have been true for this last election (due to COVID-denial by Republicans), but other than that, I thought mail-in ballots were mostly used by the military and the elderly, neither being strongly Democratic.
Here’s one cite that says it benefits neither party: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/do-republicans-or-democrats-benefit-mail-voting-it-turns-out-neither
We can quibble over details but, as the old saying goes, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
The modern Republican Party has shown to the entire world exactly what it is. It is a party that caters to the rich and powerful. It is a party that panders to fascists and white supremacists. It is a party whose president openly exhorted his supporters to overthrow the legally and democratically elected president. It is also a party that almost half the people in this country actually want to see governing them.
It is a historical fact that democracy is a rare and fragile thing. It is a historical fact that democracies have become dictatorships. Rome was a Republic but, in 27 BC, Augustus Caesar declared himself an emperor. Just like that, it was all over. Germany was a democracy but, in 1933, Hitler became one of those most ruthless dictators in history. People actually believe that it is impossible for us to suffer the same fate?! Those people are fools.