A Republican lawyer made a stunning admission to the Supreme Court about a voting rights case
At the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday an attorney for the Republican National Committee admitted GOP candidates need voter suppression laws, especially those that target minority voters, to win.
The high court was hearing arguments related to the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, which under Chief Justice John Roberts was gutted to be almost useless in 2013 when he infamously announced, "Our country has changed." The Guardian and HuffPost have written he was suggesting that racism is pretty much over.
It is not.
Tuesday's arguments discussed the landmark Voting Rights Act and "an Arizona law that disqualified ballots cast in the wrong precinct," as Mother Jones reports.
The Brennan Center, as The Washington Post, reporting on today's Supreme Court hearing notes, is tracking over 250 bills Republicans are pushing in more than half the states across the country that are designed to take the "voter fraud" lies Donald Trump and his supporters have been pushing for nearly a year and turn them into "legal" voter suppression.
The Supreme Court has changed dramatically in the nearly eight years since it suggested racism isn't a big deal anymore – and not for the better.
But it was the court's newest member, and one of the most right-wing yet, who asked a revealing question.
"What's the interest of the Arizona RNC here in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?"
That law forces the state to throw out voter ballots if cast in the wrong precinct.
The question was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The answer stunned many.
"Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats," the lawyer, Michael Carvin, responded, as Mother Jones reports. "Politics is a zero-sum game," he added.
"It's the difference between winning an election 50-49 and –" he continued, but Justice Barrett wouldn't even let him finish his sentence, perhaps for fear of what else he would say.
"Republicans' intentions couldn't be any clearer," writes Mother Jones' Abigail Weinberg. "It's not about reducing fraud. It's about keeping minorities from voting for Democrats."
Listen as Carvin, a Federalist Society lawyer, very matter-of-factly, and almost condescendingly, admit what Republicans need to do to win:
- Legal expert warns the Supreme Court has left a 'ticking time bomb ... ›
- These four states' Supreme Court elections are key for stopping ... ›
- Here's how the midterms lay out the path for a New Reconstruction ›
- Supreme Court sends hints about its coming ruling on voting restrictions - Alternet.org ›
- 'Everybody shouldn't be voting.': Arizona Republicans wage war on voting rights - Alternet.org ›
- Historian remembers LBJ’s 1965 voting rights speech — and warns voter suppression persists 56 year later - Alternet.org ›
- Voting advocates are calling out Arizona Dem senator's refusal to end filibuster to protect state voting rights - Alternet.org ›
- A right-wing legal theory could dismantle American governance — but scholars argue it's based on junk history - Alternet.org ›
- The GOP has turned their #1 issue into a joke - Alternet.org ›
- Here's how the Supreme Court laid the foundation for Georgia's restrictive voting laws - Alternet.org ›
- How the Supreme Court and the right wing found loopholes to erode the decades-old voting rights victories - Alternet.org ›
- Inside the vexed fight over online voting - Alternet.org ›
- The Supreme Court paved the way for Republicans' voter suppression - Alternet.org ›
- A dark preview of the right-wing Supreme Court's sweeping agenda - Alternet.org ›
- As GOP lawmakers work to dismantle voting laws, here's how the Supreme Court shifted power in their favor - Alternet.org ›
- How courts may respond to voter suppression bills: law professor - Alternet.org ›
- 'Democracy is under siege': Arizona 'audit' shows why national voting rights law is desperately needed - Alternet.org ›
- Supreme Court delivers another blow to the Voting Rights Act - Alternet.org ›