Democrats fumed after Donald Trump nominated three justices to the Supreme Court.
Finally, the bill came due.
And the Supreme Court smacked down a Joe Biden lawsuit with this soul-crushing defeat.
The Supreme Court handed down one of the biggest decisions of the current term in the case of Brnovich v. the Democratic National Committee.
Democrats sued the state of Arizona claiming two laws – one that disqualified votes cast in the wrong precinct and another banning ballot harvesting schemes – were racist and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
But in a six to three decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices ruled in favor of the state of Arizona in rejected challenges to election integrity.
Justice Samuel Alito – writing for the majority – smacked down the Democrats’ challenges as nonsensical noting showing up at the correct precinct was a tradition dating back hundreds of years.
“Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting,’” Alito ruled. “On the contrary, these tasks are quintessential examples of the usual burdens of voting.”
Alito argued any law would have some sort of disparate impact, but the burden by making voters cast ballots at the right polling place was miniscule.
“As with the out-of-precinct policy, the modest evidence of racially disparate burdens caused by HB 2023, in light of the State’s justifications, leads us to the conclusion that the law does not violate §2 of the VRA,” Alito added.
Alito added that the idea legislators were “dupes” of activists demanding racist voting laws didn’t pass the smell test.
“Under our form of government, legislators have a duty to exercise their judgment and to represent their constituents. It is insulting to suggest that they are mere dupes or tools,” Alito added.
Alito dismantled a dissent by liberal Justice Elena Kagan moaning that the decision gutted the ability to protect the right to vote by noting that the Constitution leaves election administration to the states and that a federal judicial takeover of elections would undercut the very notion of America.
“The dissent is correct that the Voting Rights Act exemplifies our country’s commitment to democracy, but there is nothing democratic about the dissent’s attempt to bring about a wholesale transfer of the authority to set voting rules from the States to the federal courts,” Alito added.
The Court also upheld bans on ballot harvesting schemes.
In ballot harvesting schemes, Democrats use political operatives to collect multiple ballots in nursing homes, apartment buildings or other living situations where residents live in close quarters and turn them all in at once.
Left-wing Chief Justice John Roberts noted a 2005 federal commission report on voting that found mail-in voting held the largest potential for fraud and ruled a state had an interest in preventing fraud by banning ballot harvesting schemes.
The biggest loser here was the Biden administration which recently announced the Justice Department would sue the state of Georgia over a new election integrity law requiring voter ID when voters requested and submitted an absentee ballot.
This decision renders that lawsuit dead on arrival.
If you want Great American Daily to keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.