The Supremes and Vote Suppression in Arizona
I have a piece up at the Prospect about yesterday’s oral arguments concerning Arizona’s vote suppression initiative, which is (correctly) being challenged as inconsistent with the Motor Votor Act. (SPOLIER: Scalia assumes the existence of imaginary voter fraud while sarcastically dismissing actually existing voter suppression.) The bottom line:
Arizona’s latest attempt to interfere with federal law is particularly problematic given that it concerns the right to vote. Voting is a field in which greater uniformity is a particular virtue. The fact that standards for registration and voting vary not only between states but within states represents “local control” fetishism at its most inane. State and local administration of voting isn’t merely inefficient; the purpose and effect of this decentralization has been to disenfranchise poor and/or minority voters. In this case, Congress appropriately acted to create more uniform and streamlined standards for vote registration. Arizona should not be allowed to contradict federal law and invite other states to similarly disenfranchise voters.
OT: I saw Krugman linked to your green-lantern article. I’m shocked there are only 42 comments. Apparently he didn’t direct enough traffic…
Krugman
False advertising!
I totally thought this was going to be a story about William Renquist.
Read that earlier. Good to see that Scalia consistently remains a loathsome fascist totalitarian.
That’s exactly what he was put on the court to be!
It’s just a coincidence that the internet developed trolls decades later.
Scalia was the original troll.
it’s not that he remains; he’s getting worse.
and i personally believe that scalia’s ongoing demonstration of judicial thuggery at its worst has helped influence the right-wingers on the fifth court to act out further as well.
YES….when it suits your agenda.
But, when it doesn’t…such as the states contradicting federal marijuana laws…then you offer up a different answer.
A little consistency in your legal arguments would go a long way…
I’ll re-read the 15th Amendment, but I missed the part where it contained an express grant of power to Congress to override state medical marijuana laws.
A little comprehension of the Constitution (or anything else) on your part would go much further (and be a much larger reach).
That was a comment to Scalia right?
At this point we may as well just hand the robe over to Adam Corolla.
That would actually be an upgrade.
Oh for the good old days when people wanted Obama to nominate folks with the “intellectual firepower” to match Scalia. He hasn’t attempted to make a serious case in his opinions since he came out in Bush v. Gore