We previously discussed a federal court upholding the Georgia election law as constitutional this week, rejecting challenges based on voter suppression. That did not appear to change the narrative for Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who is closely associated with the Fair Fight Action group that lost the case. Abrams claimed that the federal court actually found a “racist, discriminating system” and the law is “a voter suppression law that is already harming Georgians this year.” Indeed, while acknowledging the loss in court, the interview makes it sound like Abrams’ group largely prevailed rather than entirely lost their challenge on voter suppression.
Democrats have criticized Georgia rules enacted before and after the 2020 election as voter suppression. The provisions in this lawsuit concerned pre-2020 changes that allegedly made it “harder to register, harder to stay registered and ultimately harder to vote.” Both Stacey Abrams and Joe Biden denounced the Georgia laws in 2020 as voter suppression.
Conversely, Georgia has noted that the alleged “voter suppression” under the law turned out to be a voter enhancement. According to the secretary of state’s office, 1.9 million eligible voters participated in the 2022 primary contest compared to 1.2 million in 2018. Moreover, African-American turnout was 22% higher than any other primary election except for the 2020 presidential primary.
The Justice Department is continuing its own challenge of the post 2020 changes, which is further undermined by the analysis of Judge Jones on the pre 2020 provisions. The Justice Department is challenging stricter voter ID requirements, drop box regulations, shorter absentee ballot request deadlines and other provisions. However, it has not challenged similar or even more restrictive provisions in other states like Delaware.
Given the reasoning and precedent in the Jones opinion, such objections seem even less compelling particularly given the record turnout in the last election cycle despite both the pre-2020 and post-2020 changes.
Judge Jones did find problems on issues like training and felon voting regulations but did not find that they met the burden in establishing constitutional violations. He also recognized countervailing interests of the state on issues like felon matching procedures.
Nevertheless, Abrams seemed to claim vindication on the rejection of her claims on the pre-2020 changes. She stated on MSNBC’s “Deadline” that her opponent Gov. Brian Kemp (R) is “the architect of a voter suppression law that is already harming Georgians this year… he is a voter suppresser architect, and he is continuing to attack the right to vote in the state of Georgia.”
She then made this curious statement:
“There is a 288-page order that came down from a federal court on the last three claims during our Fair Fight Action. We did not win the claims. But if you read the 288-page order, repeatedly the federal judge said that Brian Kemp operated a racist, discriminatory system.”
It would be curious if the court found a “racist, discriminatory system” but upheld it under the Constitution. Abrams’ group challenged the law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Count I); the ban on racial discrimination in voting secured by the Fifteenth Amendment (Count II); violation of equal protection secured by the Fourteenth Amendment (Count III); violation of procedural due process secured by the Fourteenth Amendment (Count IV); and violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Count V). Those claims were rejected, not affirmed by the court. Judge Jones stated “although Georgia’s election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the VRA.”
Instead, this is what the court actually said: “the burden on voters is relatively low… plaintiffs have not provided direct evidence of a voter who was unable to vote, experienced longer wait times, was confused about voter registration status.”
Abrams also returned to the widely voiced objection to the bar on political groups giving food or water to those in line at polling places. The provision has been highlighted by critics, including President Joe Biden who repeatedly misrepresented the limitation.
Abrams objected that Kemp “made it illegal for people to get water in line. He outsourced voter suppression to white supremacists.”
The law does not prevent people from giving water to those standing in line. The law allows “self-service water from an unattended receptacle” for voters waiting in line. It also allows anyone to give water or food to any voters outside of a limited area around the polling place.
It is common to bar any political campaigning or activities within a certain number of feet (often 150 feet — or a shorter distance from any line extending beyond that area).
Here is the provision:
“(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.”
The law then allows for “self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.” It also does not limit any poll workers from supplying water to voters.
Georgia officials said that the impetus for the rule was that various political organizations in 2019 circumvented the no politicking rule by handing out food and water with actual food trucks set up for this purpose. The rule is designed to close that loophole. If campaigns or others are really concerned with just getting water to voters, they can still do so. They simply cannot take credit for it or directly engage voters in the limited area next to polling places.
The Abrams interview seems to be an exercise of the stage of grieving made famous by psychiatrist Elizabeth Kübler-Ross: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. The problem is that she seems stuck on denial.
Stacey Abrams is like Gary Puckett and the Union Gap….how many times will she sing the same inane song before the public wise up
Worse she s all for frauad! My neighbor tried to defraud genesis via a hotel room in georgia. How many hotel room voters can she have? I believe Alabama ought to stand by its felins….not run them off to Georgia in frauad. They can’t vote here…But worse we don’t give them a second chance….so of course they run to get her underground!…if we neighboring states owned it……she’d have no one in her underground. Her support is merely from felons who can from states away get a bona fide in georgia! From a hotel address!!
Refresh my memory: When Stacey was sold into slavery, she belonged to which plantation owner?
Massa Cobb
Yikes.. sometimes I read these comments and can’t believe it is 2022. In what world is this ok? Do you think that’s funny?
Anonymous at 1:00 a.m. ………Speaking for myself, I’ll paraphrase Candace Owens when she speaks to Leftist young blacks:
You’re not slaves………you/ve never been slaves….stop acting like you are slaves…..get over yourselves!
Stacey Abrams has milked the “victim” bovine once too often…..she should be ashamed! Her words and actions dishonor the memory of the blacks who truly suffered.
Well said, Cindy B.
Jonathan: When Trump and his MAGA and Oath Keepers supporters tried to overthrow a democratic election that was “voter suppression” in spades! Don’t recall you saying anything about that. So it’s curious you are now claiming victory over Judge Jones’ ruling denying a preliminary injunction in AME v Kemp where the plaintiffs are fighting “voter suppression” in Georgia. In your previous column you said “Jones found the law to be entirely constitutional”. No quite. So I think it’s important to point out what Jones actually said in his opinion. In their request for injunctive relief the plaintiffs argued the election law (SB202) was an unconstitutional violation of their right to offer water and food to voters (mostly Black) waiting in long lines of up to 6-8 hours to vote. I know that where I vote it takes about 5 minutes. I can’t imagine anyone having to wait 6 to 8 hours in the hot Georgia sun to vote. But that’s what happens in Georgia where white Georgia politicians don’t think twice about imposing such onerous voting burdens on Black voters, especially the elderly and those with physical impairments–hoping they will give up and just go home.
But getting back to Judge Jones’ ruling. He separated the issues into whether Georgia’s “Buffer Zone” and its more expansive exclusionary “Supplementary Zone” (of up to 625 ft) were unconstitutional. Jones ruled the “Buffer Zone” was not an unreasonable” burden and did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. But he concluded that the ban on offering water and food in the wider “Supplementary Zone” was an “unreasonable and significantly infringed on Plaintiffs constitutional rights” and he said they would likely succeed at trial on this issue. It is interesting that the state could offer no evidence that the voters waiting in line to vote were impeded or influenced in any way by those who offered assistance. Jones concluded he could not authorize injunctive relief only because to do so would cause “voter confusion” so close to the fall elections. That appears to be the primary reason he denied the request–but not because the Plaintiffs underlying claim lacked merit.
So Jones’ ruling was very limited. The plaintiffs say they intend to continue their fight to remove voting barriers created by SB202. What is curious is that you mention that in 2020 there was a record voter turnout–particularly among Black voters. That’s right. But it was AFTER the 2020 election that white politicians in Georgia passed SB202 with the precise purpose of stopping what happened in 2020. In other words “voter suppression”! Which kind of proves the point you thought no one would notice.
What is also curious is why you found it important to point out that Jones was “an Obama appointee”. Apparently you thought this would add weigh to you argument. It did not. I only mention this because when Judge Cannon intervened to help Trump politically in his challenge to the doc recovered by the FBI you did not point out that Cannon was “a Trump appointee”. Nor did you mention in your post about the 5th Circuit decision in the DACA that both Judges Ho and Engelhardt were also “Trump appointees”. I don’t suppose it matters who appointed whom–unless, of course, you were trying to avoid having to admit there were ideological underpinnings behind the decisions of Cannon, Ho and Engelhardt. Apparently, unlike Cannon, Ho and Engelhardt, Judge Jones has no ideological agenda. He tries to be a fair and impartial judge. He was appointed by Obama! Too bad we can’t say the same about the three other judges just mentioned–whose decisions you supported.
Dennis – can you identify a black voter who waited 6-8 hours to vote? In March 2020, a study entitled “Racial Disparities in Voting Wait Times: Evidence from Smartphone Data” was published at https://www.nber.org/papers/w26487, and was summarized at https://www.nber.org/digest/
mar20/blacks-waited-longer-vote-2016-not-due-partisanship. The authors concluded in part: “The study found that, nationwide, voters spent an average of 19 minutes at polling locations, with 18 percent spending more than 30 minutes. The states with the longest average wait times were Utah (28 minutes) and Indiana (27 minutes) and the shortest, Delaware and Massachusetts (12 minutes each). Voters at polls in all-black areas waited an average of five minutes longer at the polls than voters in neighborhoods with no black voters. . . . What accounts for the racial disparity? Not partisan politics. Whether a precinct was located in a Republican-dominated county or state made no difference in wait times. Differences in voter ID and early voting laws were not significant factors either.”
“When Trump and his MAGA and Oath Keepers supporters tried to overthrow a democratic election that was “voter suppression” in spades!”
False, protesting elections is legal. Democrats do it all the time.
Challenging elections is legal democrats do it all the time.
Claiming election fraud is legal democrats do it all the time.
Trying to get electors to change the votes is legal – democrats do it all the time.
Challenging elections in congress is legal – democrats do it all the time.
Interestingly when Democrats seek to protest at the US capital – they are allowed in.
When Republicans do the doors are locked.
“In your previous column you said “Jones found the law to be entirely constitutional”. No quite.”
That is precisely what he found.
“So I think it’s important to point out what Jones actually said in his opinion. In their request for injunctive relief the plaintiffs argued the election law (SB202) was an unconstitutional violation of their right to offer water and food to voters (mostly Black) waiting in long lines of up to 6-8 hours to vote. I know that where I vote it takes about 5 minutes. I can’t imagine anyone having to wait 6 to 8 hours in the hot Georgia sun to vote.”
Georgia is quite pleasant in November.
“But that’s what happens in Georgia where white Georgia politicians don’t think twice about imposing such onerous voting burdens on Black voters, especially the elderly and those with physical impairments–hoping they will give up and just go home.”
Oh my god, Georgia demands that voters provide ID – how racist can you get.
BTW those places that lines are long – are democrat run cities were election funds were siphoned off for other stupid uses.
Generally every precinct in a state has the same funding.
Democrat minority voters generally from big cities how no one but their own leaders to blame for local election problems.
I would further not that in all the states that have implimented voter ID minority voter participation has risen.
I would further note that Woke leftist idiots and leading democrat politicians oppose voter ID and election security, but voters do not, minorities do you.
“But he concluded that the ban on offering water and food in the wider “Supplementary Zone” was an “unreasonable and significantly infringed on Plaintiffs constitutional rights” and he said they would likely succeed at trial on this issue. It is interesting that the state could offer no evidence that the voters waiting in line to vote were impeded or influenced in any way by those who offered assistance. Jones concluded he could not authorize injunctive relief only because to do so would cause “voter confusion” so close to the fall elections. That appears to be the primary reason he denied the request–but not because the Plaintiffs underlying claim lacked merit.”
All meaningless. there is no confusion close to an election standard for constitutional rights. If actual rights were violated – what are they ?
There is no right to food or water while voting. Further the state is the defendant in this case – the burden of proof is on the plantiff.
Laws are presumptively valid until proven unconstitutional. The plaintiffs failed to do that.
I do not care much about the food and water issue – the question is why do you ?
“So Jones’ ruling was very limited.”
No he ruled that the law stands as is.
The defendants won everything.
“The plaintiffs say they intend to continue their fight to remove voting barriers created by SB202.”
Go for it, take this all the way to the supreme court so we can create a nation wide precident.
“What is curious is that you mention that in 2020 there was a record voter turnout–particularly among Black voters. That’s right. But it was AFTER the 2020 election that white politicians in Georgia passed SB202 with the precise purpose of stopping what happened in 2020.”
Absolutely GA sought to stop all the lawlessness that happened in the 2020 election.
Contra your claims – no legal change anywhere has restricted anyone’s right to vote.
Most GOP led changes do not go half far enough to actually secure elections.
NO one is trying to stop black people from voting.
And not just in 2020 but pretty uniformly after laws securing elections more – voter participation rises.
But even if it does not – so what ?
I am entirely in favor of making voting really hard so that only people who really care vote.
If that turns out to be black democrats – so be it. But I am entirely oppsed to making life easy for couch potatoes to vote.
Whether they are republicans or democrats, black or white.
“In other words “voter suppression”! Which kind of proves the point you thought no one would notice.”
Sometimes people do not notice because you are wrong.
“What is also curious is why you found it important to point out that Jones was “an Obama appointee”. Apparently you thought this would add weigh to you argument. It did not.”
Of course it does.
“I only mention this because when Judge Cannon intervened to help Trump politically in his challenge to the doc recovered by the FBI you did not point out that Cannon was “a Trump appointee”.”
Nope, but those like you did. You still think it is critical.
“Nor did you mention in your post about the 5th Circuit decision in the DACA that both Judges Ho and Engelhardt were also “Trump appointees”.”
No but you did, and you think that is critical.
“I don’t suppose it matters who appointed whom”
It should not matter but it obviously does.
The entire country knows that decisions in DC will be radically different from TX.
“unless, of course, you were trying to avoid having to admit there were ideological underpinnings behind the decisions of Cannon, Ho and Engelhardt. Apparently, unlike Cannon, Ho and Engelhardt, Judge Jones has no ideological agenda. He tries to be a fair and impartial judge. He was appointed by Obama! Too bad we can’t say the same about the three other judges just mentioned–whose decisions you supported.”
The gist of your argument is that Republican appointed judges are biased, but democrat appointed ones are not ?
What is more accurate is you do not give a schiff about the law and the constitution, only getting the outcome you want.
Cannon has done a pretty good job so far. Conversely the appeals court F’d up, as to a much lessor extent did Dearlie.
The appointment of special masters is not a big deal – especially when DOJ hjas already admitted the took and looked at documents that were priviledged. I have never heard law enforcement appeal before , and certainly never win anything.
Dearlie needs to stick to the Judges order – she appears to have a good understanding of the 4th amendment.
I have not read the DACA decision – but the core argument – that prosecutorial discretion can not extend so far as effectively rewriting the law is sound.
Most of us have a great deal of sympathy for the “dreamers”. If you want to do something for them CHANGE THE LAW. Republicans have been willing to do so for atleast a decade – but democrats would have had to agree to other things they do not like – funding the border wall, and easier removal of those here illegally. I will even personally support expanding the justifications for asylum. But again we do this by Changing the law.
Not ignoring the law because the president of the moment wishes too.
You keep claiming we are a democracy – which we are not. But then you refuse to follow democratic procedures – like following the law and constitution and changing them when they are wrong.
You are completely destorying your credibility and the little support you have from those who might want some of the things you want.
One could be forgiven for thinking that JT prefers fewer people voting. In reality, he’s just providing cover for the MAGA crowd that somehow believes our democracy works better when fewer citizens vote.
High rates of voter participation correlate strongly to political instability.
It is literally true that democracy works better with fewer people voting.
Boy, I sound like a broken record, but do our modern Dems really think we are this stupid? The video evidence of a metaphorical two seconds is enough. Federalize pot all you like, Dems (it still has to go through the courts. Sigh), we are not this stupid. And we aren’t voting for you. The ignorance they play upon and seem to think is prevalent is even worse than their stupid policy. This really is elitism vs. freedom at this point. Decide.
The Dems lost the argument when they said that the requirement of a valid ID to vote is voter suppression. Biden’s residence has been in the state of Delaware since 1953. The state of Delaware requires an ID to vote. https://www.voteriders.org/states/delaware/. One can easily see that the state that Joe Biden represented in the Senate is racist because of this requirement. They just think that your too stupid to look it up. ???
Can you please post a link to the decision? I have been unable to find the text on line
Thanks
Tell me about it. I never imagined in my wildest dreams I would agree with Kanye about anything, but here we are. And the dems put us here. Full stop.
Wonder if Stacey and “The Big Guy” ever got it on? Brandon is kind of creepy that way.
If the Democrat Party in the State of Georgia has a ‘bench’ so thin that Abrams was their most-qualified candidate 4 years ago and 4 years later is still their most-qualified candidate, then the Democrat Part in Georgia has a serious problem.
All the illegal immigration since 1863 constitutes effective democrat “Voter Aiding, Abetting and Assisting Law.”
Who’s fooling whom with the “law” here?
Professor Turley,
Your cursory dismissal of Ms. Abrams’ comment on MSNBC appears to be at odds with the text of the Judge’s Opinion. Here are two places where the Court acknowledges that Georgia elections (either while Kemp was Secretary of State or a gubernatorial candidate) were racially charged and/or discriminatory:
1. On pages 274-276, when recounting the Gingles Senate Factors, the Court weighed “whether there is a history of official discrimination in Georgia.” Ultimately, the Court determined that “Georgia’s history of discrimination, at a minimum, existed within the last decade.” Kemp was Secretary of State from 2010 – 2018. Additionally, “The Court [found] that Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial showing that Georgia’s history of past discrimination is not simply resigned to the annals of history, but still exists today.” Kemp is the current Governor of Georgia.
2. On page 281, the Court considered whether there was evidence of racial appeals used in recent Georgia elections. “In 2018, Georgia governor candidate Brian Kemp’s campaign issued a campaign video that showed violent imagery – Kemp blowing up items, Kemp cocking a gun, and Kemp using a chainsaw – before he revs his truck and states “I got a big truck – just in case I need to round up criminal illegals and take ’em home myself. Yup I just said that.”
While the Court ultimately did not rule in favor of Fair Fight, the Court’s issues stemmed mainly Plaintiff’s inability to meet evidentiary burdens with respect to the remaining claims (those not already corrected by the state). It acknowledges the past pattern and practice of racially discriminatory elections in Georgia, including while Kemp was in charge of the elections process as Secretary of State.
The evidence YOU claim the court used to conclude that there is current evidence of racist election laws in GA undermines your own argument.
First had Kemp made an add wearing a hood and burning a cross, that would be evidence of HIS racism – not racism in GA election laws.
The 14th amendment does not prohibit racists from holding public office – any more than it prohibits socialists.
Our constitution does not bar racism.
It bars intentional racism in the law.
You are free to smear a candidate rightly or wrongly as racist – though I do not see how “I got a big truck, and I will use it to enforce the law” is racist. Regardless, voters are free to elect who they please. And the courts are limited to striking actually racist or unconstitutional laws.
Those were the judge’s words, not mine. Read the order if you don’t believe me. I provided page numbers…
And your point about Kemp’s ad isn’t entirely correct because evidence of his racist campaign messaging was one part of the Gingles totality of the circumstances test for establishing a violation of the VRA. The court noted that Kemp’s campaign messaging weighed in favor of plaintiffs on that particular factor.
Again, I am not arguing that Abrams should have won the case. I am just defending her comment regarding the judge’s acknowledgement of Kemp’s past role in racially discriminatory GA elections.
I am not criticizing the judges words. I am attacking the forced meaning you attached.
If the judged had actually meant what you claim he would have been obligated to find differently.
No law can violate the 14th amendment. He found the law constitutional, therefore he found that it did not facially violate the 14th amendment and that the plantiff did not prove it violated it as applied.
Those findings MUST control the meaning of anything else he said – otherwise the decision is self contradictory and hypocritical.
So you have a choice – the judges is a hypocrite.
Or he did not mean what you claim.
Beyond that you really do not understand the law. The VRA does not apply to campaign adds. Nor does the 14th amendment.
Government may not regulate viewpoints in private speech – particularly political speech.
All that aside – it is clear you see racism everywhere. It is also clear that you have never had to live in a world with significant actual racism.
You live in the least racist country in the world, at the least racist moment in history and your efforts to manufacture racism everywhere makes you look silly and ultimately risks creating actual racism.
Sorry I apologize – it already has – yours.
You seem to think minorities are incapable of following the same laws that others do – that is racism.
Thornbirg v Gingles
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornburg_v._Gingles
Check out factor 6. “Whether overt or subtle racial appeals in campaigns exist;”
Do you stand by your claim that campaign ads are irrelevant to VRA claims?
Yes,
Factor 6 is a constitutional error on the part of the court. Neither the VRA nor any other federal law can restrict the free speech rights of non-government actors ESPECIALLY in the political context.
Frankly most of the “factors” in the decision are abysmally bad legally.
Are you even sure that Giggles remains good law ?
There has been lots of redistricting cases since, and SCOTUS is moving rapidly back to “its none of our business”
Frankly the VRA itself was unconstitutional. Congress has limited power to regulate federal elections and no power at all to regulate state elections. State election laws can still be found to violate the 14th amendment, but congress can not extend further into the domain of the state without amending the constitution. The 14th amendment Alone is all the protection that is needed.
But SCOTUS has allowed congress to do stupid things for far too long.
Did you read the order? Application of the Gingles factors to plaintiffs claims was a major focus of the entire case.
So yes. It is still good law.
The problem with this back and forth is about the objective. Are we discussing the law as it is or as you wish it to be? Claiming a 1986 SCOTUS decision made by a conservative court is incorrect would suggest the latter.
My argument is not with the judge or the order.
It is with your obviously false claim that the Judge found racial discrimination – a 14th amendment violation, but upheld the law.
If that occurred – the judge erred – appeal.
I am not arguing anything beyond that your argument is full of schiff.
No where in this decisions does SCOTUS say that it is within the power of the federal government to infringe on private political speech that is deemed racist.
We have 250 years of first amendment case law that is in your way.
Why would that matter?
No one – neither the plaintiff, the defendant, the judge, nor myself- had said that Kemp can’t release a campaign ad that uses racist language.
No one has made a first amendment claim. This is a claim under the VRA.
Evidence of such messaging is one factor in the totality of the circumstances test used to evaluate the VRA claim.
Does that make sense?
The Scotus decision you cited, which I strongly suspect is no longer good law, as SCOTUS has been actively backing out of Redistricting
provides a multifactor test that includes consideration of Campaign content.
Government may not consider campaign speech as part of analysis of a law.
That would violate the first amendment.
This issue was raised regarding Trump EO classifying 7 nations as high security risks and restricting visa’s.
SCOTUS shot down weighing campaign rhetoric
You can only way the speak of those in government when they are speaking as government in trying to weigh intentions.
Frankly it is stupid to consider intentions at all with regard to the constitutionality of a law.
A law is either unconstitutional on its face, or unconstitutional as applied.
The left constantly equates smears with regard to intent with unconstitutionality or criminality.
Allegedly bad intentions – even openly bad intentions do not make an otherwise legal and constitutional act or law into a crime.
It is total idiocy to claim that some law would be constitutional if those enacting were either angels or better at hiding their motives.
This fixation on motives by the left is stupid.
We do not want people hiding their motives. We do not want overt censorship or self censorship.
We want people – politicians, and everyone else to be free to say what they think.
So that we can make our choices based on their own accurate self portrayal.
I want Der Sturmer, or antifa on FB, Twitter, …. I want to know exactly what they are up to.
I want to know how many followers they really have, I want them to be as open and honest as I can get them to be.
That is how we know whether they are a consequential threat.
With respect to the motives of law makers – those get judged by voters at the polls.
Not judges in court.
It does not make sense – because it is wrong.
When you say that private political speech is a factor, you are saying that judges can weigh that speech in deciding the constitutionality of a law,
That is itself a violation of the constitution.
The easiest way to understand this is to go backwards.
If a given law would be constitutional, if it was enacted by angels. Then it is constitutional if enacted by racists.
Any judicial process that leads to different results based on the words of the people involved is error, and violates the first amendment.
Intention is only relevant in crimes and only when all other elements of the crime are met.
I would note you are getting farther and farther afeild in your efforts to make a case that is not there.
While I have correctly argued that the SCOTUS case you cite is unconstitutionally reasoned.
Fundimentally that is a complete tangent. The claim you are relying on is an error is a single subjective factor (another reason it is unconstitutional), that is neither alone sufficient nor present in the instant case.
All you are doing is making it clear WHY the law can not be as you wish it to be.
In 1986 the supreme court did not think Racism was a subjective or unclear term.
Today the left has made breathing racist.
Aparently according to VP Harris huricanes are racist, and Federal assistance to those harmed by a huricane is racist.
Everything is racist.
You are making it perfectly clear Why originalism exists – because if you allow one political group to redefine the meaning of words,
without originalism you can change the constitution and the law to mean whatever you want.
That is by defintion the rule of man not law.
You are the one claiming binding percent for 30+ years was incorrectly decided. I am literally just reciting that binding precedent. Can you name a single thing I have said which has states not what the law is but what I wish it to be?
The Opinion cited the Gingles factors in determining whether the plaintiffs VRA claim had merit. One of the Gingles factors pertains to campaign messaging. The Court acknowledged that this particular factor weighed in favor of plaintiff but that ultimately, on balance, the the totality of the circumstances weighed in favor of the defendant.
None of that is the law as I wish it to be. That is simply a factual summary of this friggin case.
I don’t know why I try anymore. If your argument is.. “sure but I don’t care about the law.” (See, Gingles, the VRA, poll taxes, etc. )Then, fine. But acknowledge that you prefer a radical reinterpretation of voting rights law, then, instead of claiming that is what the Order said or what Prof Turley said. Just be honest with yourself.
The decision you cite was OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional, for reasons I have described.
You claim it remains valid precedent, but there have been numerous election law cases since that are completely at odds with your claims.
Either they implicitly or explicitly overruled the case you cite.
And you do all this tangentially.
You assert that the judge found a 14th amendment violation in this law.
If so the Judge decided in favor of Abrams.
A 14th amendment violation is fatal to any law.
While I beleive there are serious constitutional problems with totality of circumstances tests.
That is still irrelevant.
14th amendment violations are always fatal.
I do not know why you try anymore either.
You are off in the weeds.
14th amendment violations are always fatal.
The judge decided for the defendant.
QED no 14th amendment violation.
Actual discrimination by race is a 14th amendment violation.
Now, if you wish to mumble about some factor that is NOT discrimination by race, maybe totality of the circumstances applies.
But that is not what you are claiming.
You are arguing that the judge decided for the defendant while finding a factor that alone would be fatal, by pretending it was not fatal.
AND you are trying to pretend that the judge did so without actually erring.
That is crap.
If you wish to claim the Judge found racial discrimination by the state in the law – then appeal this decision.
The apeals court will dispatch it quickly if you are correct.
A 14th amendment violation is always fatal.
A 14th amendment violation is fatal independent of the VRA.
The 14th amendment is 100 years older than the VRA, is a constitutional amendment not merely a law.
I have been perfectly honest.
The factor in the SCOTUS decision your cited is unconstitutional. PERIOD.
That is true whether the decision is currently binding or not.
Many provisions of the VRA are unconstitutional. The constitution specifies the scope of congresses power over federal elections, and provides no power at all over state elections. However state election laws are subject to judicial review for conformance with the constitution – including specifically the 14th amendment.
Those provisions of the VRA that do not run afoul of the constitution are valid, but unnecescary – the 14th amendment covers those issues.
I do not prefer a radical interpretation of the VRA. The courts shoudl just stick to the 14th amendment – it is sufficient.
This happens alot – usually driven by the left, but sometimes by the right.
Long ago we with very few exceptions reached nearly all the law we need.
Much of what we have passed since then has either been unconstitutional or redundant.
It is BAD to pass redundant laws.
Just enforce those that already exist.
The VRA is partly redundant with the 14th amendment, and partly unconstitutional.
It is possible that hiding within the VRA there are a few provisions that do not run afoul of the rest of the constitution or are not redundant with the 14th amendment. The constitution does provide SOME ability for congress to regulate SOME aspects of federal elections.
Rubbish anonymous. Keep twisting and you will be able to go to your Halloween Party as a pretzel.
Hmm, “Plaintiff’s inability to meet evidentiary burdens”. I guess that means she couldn’t show evidence of voter suppression.
The point of the comment wasn’t to suggest that the Judge was wrong in ruling against Fair Fight. It was a response to the good professors dismissal of her comments on MSNBC. So, yes, I agree with you although I don’t think that is relevant to the original post.
If the judges comments meant what you claim she would not have ruled as she did.
That is why Turley dismissed the comments.
That is not how totality of the circumstances tests work. The judge can find one factor for the plaintiffs, but ultimately hold that, on balance, the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of the defendant. That is precisely what happened here. Please read the opinion.
I am not making a totality of the circumstance argument.
MY argument is that YOUR interpretation of what she wrote is obviously incorrect.
Regardless, an act of government can not violate the 14th amendment and still be constitutional.
It either does or it does not.
The COURT used the totality of the circumstances test. I don’t care whether you used it.
The whole point of the original post was to question the good professors cursory dismissal of Abrams’ claims regarding the Orders acknowledgment of discriminatory elections under Kemp’s watch.
If you read the Order, he does acknowledge that in at least 2 places, while still finding for the defense on balance (using the totality of the circumstances GINGLES test).
Your response suggested that finding a factor in favor of the plaintiff was impossible because the judge ruled for the defense.
My pointing out the nature of a totality of the circumstances test is a response to that. If you don’t know how they work: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_of_the_circumstances
This is pretty trivial. The finding that you are claiming is contained in the court order is ALONE sufficient under the 14th amendment.
If the court actually found the specific fact you claim, they would have been required to decide against GA.
Your totality of the circumstances claim is a red herring.
If you have an eye witness to a murder – you have all you need to prosecute – and in most cases convict.
When you do not have a single conclusive factor – THEN you can reach a conviction based on several pieces of circumstantial evidence.
A 14th amendment violation is like an eyewitness ALL that is needed, nothing else needs considered.
The Judge found for GA – therefore there was no 14th amendment violation.
Either your interpretation of what the judge wrote in the body of her oppinion was incorrect,
or the judge erred in the decision.
There is no “there was a 14th amendment violation, but that is insufficient” standard.
If the judge found a 14th amendment violation – appeal and you will win – easily.
I know those of you on the left have problems with binaries – but this is one.
14th amendment violation – GA loses. PERIOD.
They did not lose, therefore no 14th amendment violation.
This is the entire discussion of the Gingles factor in the order relating to campaign messaging.
“Plaintiffs have provided evidence that racial appeals were made in recent
Georgia elections. In Gingles, the district court found, and the Supreme Court did not discuss or disturb, that “white candidates in North Carolina have encouraged voting along color lines by appealing to racial prejudice.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 40. The district court further held that “the use of racial appeals in political campaigns in North Carolina persists to the present day and that its current effect is to lessen to some degree the opportunity of black citizens to participate effectively in the political processes and to elect candidates of their choice.” Id.
“Here, Plaintiffs presented evidence of examples of racial appeals used in recent Georgia elections. For example, Plaintiffs point to the 2018 Republican gubernatorial primary, during which candidate (and then-State Senator) Michael Williams conducted a “deportation bus” tour with a school bus emblazoned with
the words “Fill this bus with illegals.” The back of the bus read: “Danger!
Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, and other criminals on board.” PX. 1653. In September 2016, a Douglas County commissioner was recorded making disparaging statements to voters about Black candidates in local races, stating that a government run by African American leadership would “bankrupt you.” PX. 1651. He also warned voters that a Black sheriff candidate would put
unqualified Black people in high-ranking positions if elected. Id. In 2018, Georgia governor candidate Brian Kemp’s campaign issued a campaign video that
showed violent imagery—Kemp blowing up items, Kemp cocking a gun, and Kemp using a chainsaw—before he revs his truck and states “I got a big truck—just in case I need to round up criminal illegals and take ‘em home myself. Yup I just said that.” PX. 1669.
“The most recent Georgia elections also use racial appeals in campaigns. In June 2020, then-Republican candidate for Georgia’s 14th U.S. congressional district Marjorie Taylor Greene received national criticism for racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic views expressed in a series of Facebook videos. PX. 1207. Greene suggested that Muslims do not belong in government; that Black people “are held slaves to the Democratic Party”; that George Soros is a Nazi; and that Black people should feel “proud” to see a Confederate monument
because it symbolizes progress made since the Civil War. Id. In April 2020, former U.S. congressman Paul Broun, Jr., running to reclaim his former seat, posted a campaign ad in which he offered to give away an assault rifle, stating that such guns were needed to protect against the “looting hordes from Atlanta.” PX. 1655. In April 2022, Kandiss Taylor—candidate for Georgia governor—posted a graphic reflecting her endorsement by the Georgia Proud Boys, commenting that she was “proud to be the first candidate to receive an endorsement from the
Georgia Chapter. Thank you for serving as I plan to serve.” PX. 2165.In May 2022 when running in the Republican primary for Georgia governor, former Senator David Perdue accused Stacey Abrams of “demeaning her own race.” PX. 2172. In June 2022, candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Georgia’s Third Congressional District Rhonda Simpson posted a photo on Facebook that falsely Imagines Stacey Abrams saying “I ain’t even stole the election yet and people be congratulatin’ me like crazy” and President Obama responding, “It’s because they think you’re pregnant.” PX. 2164. The Court finds that Plaintiffs provided evidence of racial appeals in recent
Georgia elections and have carried their burden. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of finding a Section 2 violation.”
When one looks at John’s argument and then looks at this reply, all one can ask is what is your point. John has been correct in argument and you have been involved in tangential arguments whether relevant or not.
I have already addressed this repeatedly.
Any test that CONSIDERS political speech is unconstitutional PERIOD.
The courts can not accomplish themselves through multi factor tests, what congress can not do by law.
I have no idea what the actual state of the law regarding Giggles is – but I do know it will not survive the current SCOTUS
And that it should not.
Frankly the entire multi-factor test issue in this context is nonsense.
If you violate equal protection – the law is unconstitutional.
I have ZERO interest in the rest of your or the judges ranting.
Either she asserted that equal protection had been violated, or she did not.
Simple Binary.
But I will AGAIN address your massive mostly pointless post AGAIN.
State Clearly that the Judge found a 14th amendment equal protection violation – and I would expect everyone on this blog to join you in demanding this law be declared unconstitutional.
I am not interested in an argument that she sort of did but it was not enough to find the law unconstitutional.
Actual real equal protection violation – law is unconstitutional PERIOD.
Equal protection means actual racial discrimination in the law is unconstitutional PERIOD.
You can establish that two ways – Facially, or as applied.
For as applied racial discrimination you either need to allow the law to go into effect and challenge it when you can prove that as applied it is discriminatory. or that under similar circumstances in the past similar laws have proven to be racially discriminatory in the past.
And if you do not have racial discrimination – GO AWAY.
I am not interested in Faux Racial nonsense, racial mind reading. or finding racism using ouija boards.
This court found the GA law constitutional.
That either means there is no equal protection violation, no racial discrimination,
or if your claim is correct that she found discrimination in the body of her opinion then
the judge is an incompetent idiot.
I did not suggest that finding in favor of the defense means there are no factors favorable to the plaintiff.
What I am specifically addressing is your claim that the judge found a 14th amendment violation – an example of actual racial discrimination by government.
There is no totality of the circumstances means to alter the fact that government may not violate the 14th amendment. PERIOD.
That is binary, not “totality of the circumstances”
Any law that violates the 14th amendment is unconstitutional.
The judge can not find a 14th amendment violation and uphold the law.
When did I claim the judge found a 14th amendment violation? What specifically?
Read your own arguments and see what those arguments hinged on. If not, what you said was a waste of time and divergent from the discussion.
If she did not – then this is done. There is no issue.
All constitutional racial discrimination claims rest in the 14th amendment.
The editorial comments of the judge either demonstrate a 14th amendment violation – in which case she decided wrongly.
Or they do not – in which case they are meaningless and legally superfluous.
Next step anonymous, you can go from a pretzel to a bag of pretzels. Do you ever engage in fact instead of twisting words, ideas and everything else?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
_________________________________
“Is Abrams married?”
“Abrams is not married and rarely discusses her relationship status.
“She mentioned in a 2021 interview that a budding relationship had ended just before the Covid pandemic took hold.
“The 47-year-old is largely dedicated to her work, but told CBS This Morning host Gayle King: “If a guy realizes I’m out here and wants to drop me a note, I’m looking forward to meeting him.’
“In her memoir, she also revealed that she thought she would be in love and have children by the age of 28.”
– U.S. Sun
_________
M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank[ed]
The Olde Ball And Chain
Not so much!
What relevance and connection to Georgians and Americans does an unwed, 5′ 3″, 253 lb., African female have?
How in the world does this entity win elections without the capable assistance of the iniquitous corruption of fundamental and overt vote tampering and election fraud?
Apparently, no one wants to marry her/it/she but legions of the downtrodden unwashed masses have an overwhelming desire to vote for her/it/she.
Wait! I get it, she attracts the sympathy vote, in droves – something akin to the scenario in “The Elephant Man.”
The Stacy Abrams phenomenon, aka subterfuge, makes it abundantly clear that the vote restrictions in the restricted-vote republic of the American Founders were eminently appropriate, nay, imperative.
God Bless Stacy Abrams.
Three judges giving an opinion (based on already very narrow SCOTUS definitions) does not make it not voter suppression. It still is voter suppression.
Of course it is, because according to the left everything is voter supression.
I would BTW note that Actual voter supression is neither illegal or unconstitutional.
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about making voting difficult.
In fact doing so stabalizing government.
The harder voting is the less couch potatoes we have voting.
In ALL things we make the best decisions when we have “skin in the game”.
If voting is hard only those for who the differences in candidates matter a great deal will vote,
and the results will be better quality elected officials.
The easier you make voting – the worse government will be.
That is horrible. To intentionally try to exclude citizens from voting. Also these measures do disproportionately suppress minority, poor, elderly, and the disabled,
That is horrible. To intentionally try to exclude citizens from voting. Also these measures do disproportionately suppress minority, poor, elderly, and the disabled,
Difficult does not equal exclusion. Instead, this is what the court actually said: “the burden on voters is relatively low… plaintiffs have not provided direct evidence of a voter who was unable to vote, experienced longer wait times, was confused about voter registration status.”
I found it difficult to hike to the top of Half Dome in Yosemite; I didn’t make it. Was I being excluded, or did I not do what was necessary to prepare for it? Go gaslight somewhere else.
We intentionally exclude non-citzens from voting – is that horrible ?
Should Putin and Xi have a vote in US elections ?
Regardless, no one who can legally vote is being intentionally excluded by denying them the abillity to vote without letting go of their game console.
As to the claim that making voting harder and more secure restricts minorities – that was long ago proven to be Bunk.
Some of these laws have been arround for decades.
None have been found to have an unconstitutionally discriminatory effect.
Intentionally discriminating against minorities violates the 14th amendment. Intentionally dsicriminating against couch potatoes does not.
A district court in August disagrees with you. https://www.wpr.org/us-court-blocks-ruling-would-have-required-voters-living-disabilities-cast-ballots-themselves
4 voters with physical disabilities so significant that they require the help of another were effectively denied the right to vote by a Wisconsin law that denied them the ability to have the help of another at the polls.
The decision you cite is in error, and if appealed will likely be overturned.
WI has required people to cast their votes themselves for decades, possibly a century.
WI SCOTUS has recently ruled that they still must.
The VRA does not address disabilities. the 14th amendment does not.
The ADA does. The ADA requires that the needs of the disabled be accomidated, but SCOTUS has been very clear – the ADA does not require giving the handicapped what they want. It requires giving them the same oportunity.
In the Case of WI it means The state sends out election officials to help those unable to physically come to the polls to vote.
That does not violate state constitutional requirements that:
Require the voter to cast the ballot, that require election secrecy, as well as several others.
While it is obviously correct that the state can not make it impossible for people whose physical handicapp prevents them from voting,
that does not mean that the handicapped can designate their own assistant. There is nowhere in the constitution or the ADA any provision that requires the state or a private entity to accomidate a handicap in the way the handicapped person desires.
I was DOJ trained regarding the ADA about a year after it passed. I can assure you DOJ did not read the ADA as requiring the accomodation of your chosing. Nor has the supreme court subsequently.
The problems in WI in 2020 are the perfect example why this is a problem. In 2018 approximately 14K handicapped and shutins received WI election official assistance to vote. In 2020 140K votes from people claiming to be handicapped or shutin were received by mail.
Investigations have found – very very of those voters actually requested a ballot – typically nursing home staff did it for them. In large numbers of instances institutionalized people who were incompetent voted – or more accurately somone voted for them. People who were in comma’s somehow voted. People who do not recall having voted – still magically voted.
The scale of nursing home voting fraud in WI was enormous and more than enough to flip the election.
I would note that there was no problem with handicapped people voting in 2018.
This is one of the things wrong with your claims of voter supression. All too often it means that you think it is unconstitutional to supress election fraud.
It does not appear that WI is going to appeal the ruling you cite. But they should. There is a huge difference between the voter can pick whoever they want to assist them in voting and the state sends an election worker out.
The first opens enormous oportunities for fraud – as the WIL spokesman in your article notes – the problem is how this is implimented.
If the implimentation matters – the court was clearly wrong. Courts are supposed to solve problems the least intrusive way possible.
I doubt the federal judge thought of that – but he has declared several WI constitutional provisions unconstitutional as applied to handicapped people, and he has done this citing the wrong law.
Typical lefties do not think before they act.
Do you think poll taxes are constitutional? Check out the 24th amendment.
Please be careful when you making sweeping claims, such as, “Actual voter supression is neither illegal or unconstitutional. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about making voting difficult.”
Poll taxes were adopted as a voter suppression tactic, but it is unconstitutional for almost 60 years.
Poll taxes specifically are not constitutional – because of the passage of the 24th amendment.
Whether they were or not prior depends on how they were applied. Prior to the 14th amendment they were not facially unconstitutional.
Frankly I have no problem with small poll taxes – say $1. If you are not willing to pay the price of a soda or candy bar or bottle of water, voting has no value to you. But absent a repeal of the 24th amendment today they are unconstitutional.
And I do not feel strongly enough to work to repeal the 24th amendment.
If you wish make other voting laws illegal – take a page from those who passed the 24th amendment and change the constitution.
“Please be careful when you making sweeping claims”
Why ? My “sweeping claim” is not changed by the 24th amendment. Nowhere in the 24th amendment does it say “voter suppression is unconstitutional”. intentionally racially targeted voting laws are unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment – not the 24th.
38 states have constitutions that require secret voting. None of these were enforced in 2020. But many of them are now being enforced in 2022.
WI SCOTUS in specific has declared nearly everything the WEC did in 2020 unconsitutional, and forbid it in 2022.
Secret ballots makes voting harder. That is “voter supression”. Secret balloting came about in the US (and much of the world) in the late 19th century as an antifraud measure to fight rampant fraud at the time.
All or nearly all anti-fraud measures make voting harder – they are voter supression. They are also legal and constitutional, unless they:
have a racially discriminatory intent AND significant racially discriminatory effect.
Minimum wages laws should have been declared unconstitutional – as they have both.
“Poll taxes specifically are not constitutional – because of the passage of the 24th amendment.”
John, you are good. You expose the ignorance of anonymous and demonstrate how he picks isolated statements for argument but forgets the important things like Constitutional Amendments. His words are deceptive and rarely last the test of time.
“Frankly I have no problem with small poll taxes – say $1. If you are not willing to pay the price of a soda or candy bar or bottle of water, voting has no value to you.”
This concept is important and needs to be understood. There are always costs associated with voting, even if it is the gas one uses driving to the polls. Why should the voting process be easy and cost-free at the expense of legitimacy and beneficence? masieting
“Secret ballots makes voting harder. That is “voter supression”.
That shows all of anonymous’s arguments as fallacious.
Nothing you have said is that difficult to conclude. For the most part, it requires an honest mind which you have and anonymous lacks.
Thank you for making things clear.
I guess anonymous thinks voter suppression is unacceptable because it seeks to prevent the dilution of votes so that frauds like Biden can get 80M votes. You are a pretzel and wish to fill the bag with fraudulent pretzels while strenuously objecting when people try to prevent you from doing so.
A poll tax is a form of voter suppression. Poll taxes are unconstitutional by your own admission. Therefore your claim that voter suppression is never unconstitutional is incorrect. That is how logic works bud.
“A poll tax is a form of voter suppression. Poll taxes are unconstitutional by your own admission. Therefore your claim that voter suppression is never unconstitutional is incorrect. That is how logic works bud.”
“voters suppression is not unconstitutional” is not the same as “voter suppression is never unconstitutional”
The poll tax amendment which was superfluous made poll taxes unconstitutional.
It did not make voter suppression unconstitutional.
Further while it is likely that the amendment was passed to thwart the efforts of southern states to use poll taxes as means to disenfranchise black voters – and we could probably find that in the legislative history – you have not.
You you have not even made the case that the poll tax amendment was about ANY form of voter suppression.
If you are going to attack someone else on the basis of logic – you had better be right.
You are not. You concocted a unversal from a general, and then you generalized from a specific.
Finally, you are posting as anonymous so you have no earned credibility you must prove every element of your claims.
Your words:
“I would BTW note that Actual voter supression is neither illegal or unconstitutional.
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about making voting difficult”
That is a general statement that claims making voting difficult is not unconstitutional.
Poll taxes necessarily make vote difficult. That is their purpose. Literally google poll taxes to read up on your history of it down here in the south.
Poll taxes are an unconstitutional form of “making voting difficult” ergo I have provided an irrefutable example of how your sweeping statement above is not correct.
Whether you agree with poll taxes has no bearing on the above logic. If you can’t see that, then we can end this conversation.
“”There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about making voting difficult”
That is a general statement that claims making voting difficult is not unconstitutional.”
“Poll taxes necessarily make vote difficult.”
Correct.
“That is their purpose.”
Incorrect. They are a tax.
“Literally google poll taxes to read up on your history of it down here in the south.”
Guns are used to kill people – that is one of their purposes.
Sometimes that is self defense – legal.
Sometimes that is murder not.
“Poll taxes are an unconstitutional form of “making voting difficult” ergo I have provided an irrefutable example of how your sweeping statement above is not correct.”
You are not very good with logic.
“Whether you agree with poll taxes has no bearing on the above logic.”
Correct. the logic is flawed regardless.
There are multiple errors.
All generalizations are not absolutes.
All poll taxes are unconstitutional.
All poll taxes are not “making voting difficult”
Are gas taxes making driving difficult ?
Are income taxes making working difficult ?
They fact that poll taxes have been used to prevent voting does not mean that is their only purpose.
I do not oppose poll taxes – just because someone somewhere sometime used them for bad purposes,
Just as I do not oppose guns because someone somewhere sometime used them for bad purposes.
The 14th amendment was sufficient to deal with discriminatory poll taxes.
And in fact the supreme court held exactly that – as the 24th amendment only applies to federal elections.
The 24th amendment was a mistake. but we are stuck with it and it is not a big mistake, nor the only one we are stuck with.
Something those like you on the left do not grasp. Just because you do not like the law or constitution does not mean you get to wish it away.
I would like to see the 24th amendment repealed. I think a minimal poll tax nationwide would be an excellent idea.
I think it would be a good idea specifically because it would be a tiny barrier that would decrease voting by couch potatoes.
I am all in favor of people being free to chose not to vote because they are unwilling to overcome small obstacles.
But I do not feel strongly enough about this to mount a massive campaign to repeal the 24th amendment.
Regardless, poll taxes – as of 1964 are unconstitutional. They have a history or being used to violate equal protection.
That does not mean all poll taxes violate equal protection – that is YOU over generalizing.
Back to my statement and your invalid rebutal.
I did not say that ALL voter suppression is constitutional
If I say “Ice cream is legal” – that is not the same as saying “LSD laced ice cream is legal”.
Poll Taxes are always unconstitutional – they are sometimes voter suppression, they are also sometimes violations of equal protection.
it is not true that they are always voter suppression, or that they are always violations of equal protection – if they were – all taxes would be unconstitutional.
“If you can’t see that, then we can end this conversation.”
You can stop whenever you want. I do not have a gun to your head.
If you can’t see that, then we can end this conversation.
How is it voter suppression in Georgia and not in NY, Vermont, Maryland, Va?
“She then made this curious statement:
“There is a 288-page order that came down from a federal court on the last three claims during our Fair Fight Action. We did not win the claims. But if you read the 288-page order, repeatedly the federal judge said that Brian Kemp operated a racist, discriminatory system.”
It would be curious if the court found a “racist, discriminatory system” but upheld it under the Constitution.”
*****************************
Nobody ever said the Dims were smart. In fact, they’re the new Party of Crazy taking over from the country club Repubs Party of Stupid. Sad part is the infidels now hold the nuclear codes and with that senile Mr. Magoo in charge of them it might not matter if we’re armed at all since said Fearless Leader says we must defend the Ukraine to the death of all of us. I’m reading the Book of Revelations more and more these days for wagering advice and learning how to effectively render the traditional smite. I think both could come in handy as we move through this little valley we find ourselves in by our own design – or at least by design of 80 million or so of us.
That said the Dims do seem to have the world market cornered on buffoonish, irrational, just plain stupid POC/WOC who are a stain on and embarrassment for most other POC/WOC. So they do have that going for them.