SCOTUS out with those rulings as I mentioned the other day.
Both 6-3 partisan splits and both awful decisions.
Shorter versions for those who don't want to read my rambling on the cases:
For the VRA case, this court once again hacks away at it - this time narrowing the applicability of the only provision of it still in effect after their previous hacking - and ruled to uphold the voter restrictions the GOP put in place in Arizona.
For the donor-disclosure case, Roberts writes for the majority and struck down California's law requiring donors to non-profits to disclose their identities to the state. However, rather than narrowly applying it, the court broadly rejects it in a way that the dissent points out squarely endangers the existence of electoral donation reporting and disclosure and very much opens them up to be challenged and struck down.
Longer Versions:
VRA: Alito writes the majority here and we've got gems such as "the racial disparity in burdens allegedly caused by the out-of-precinct policy is small in absolute terms" straight up arguing that even though it impacted Hispanic, black, and Native Americans at over twice the rate of white voters that "yeah but it wasn't that many people." Then we've got the atrocious, "Even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a disparate burden caused by HB 2023, the State's 'compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures' would suffice to avoid [Section] 2 liability." straight-up saying that even if voter restrictions have a disproportionate impact along racial lines it's fine because the state says it's trying to prevent voter fraud. It even has the gall to cite that GOP fraud case in North Carolina's 2018 race as a reason why Arizona has a compelling interest to enact such laws. It then addresses (and blows off) the fact that there was no voter fraud found in Arizona as irrelevant. They also go, (Paraphrased) "Well, this section of the law was last amended in 1982 and there wasn't much absentee voting back then so we doubt any of this applies much to absentee voting" as if things are frozen in time. Also that even if a state fucks around with one method of voting it's okay because you have to consider the other methods to vote which maybe weren't fucked up.
Donors: I find it ironic that after just claiming that screaming voter fraud even though it's a fucking lie is apparently a fully legitimate interest of the state to enact voter restrictions even if they disproportionately affect minorities that here Roberts here is turning around to go "We do not doubt the California has an important interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations. It goes without saying that there is a 'substantial governmental interest in protecting the public from fraud'" and then go but..... and dismiss it as not what was really going on here. Like literally having the balls to come out here and basically go "the rights of money are stronger than the right to vote." Also that money doesn't have to show or demonstrate actual harm in a darkly amusing callback to the ruling we talked about the other day.
In summary, it feels like getting whiplash from seeing the turnaround the court uses in its arguments to get to their rulings here. Even more so taking the past few cases we've talked about here into consideration. Not a surprise given how the legacy of the Roberts court is likely to be its erosion of voting rights and infusion of unlimited dark money into politics.
Im sorry but this cant be true as I have it on good authority that both candidates from 2016 were equally bad.
---
Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."