• October 22, 2021

BREAKING: Supreme Court Deals Massive Blow to Dems’ Lawsuits

The Democrats are a bunch of shady people who will do all that they can to steal elections and whatever else they need to so they can get into power.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began last year, these cheaters found a way to steal votes under the guise of keeping people safe with mail-in ballots.

Everyone with a brain cell saw that this was the way they would steal the election since there would be no telling if the ballots were legitimate. Fast-forward to now and we are still sifting through the fall-out of an election mired in voter fraud from these relaxed voters rules.

States across the country are doing what they can to bring back the old ways of voting that have been working quite well for decades, but the liberals are fighting against it tooth and nail.

Arizona is one state that has been working its way through all the voter fraud and recently reinstated its election laws back to how they were pre-pandemic.

The dirty dems of course were not happy about it and filed a lawsuit against the state and the case was taken to the Supreme Court where the left was issued a crushing blow.

In a  6-3 vote, the highest court in the land upheld Arizona’s laws, which essentially return the state’s election laws to the norm before the 2020 pandemic. Arizona’s new election laws regulate where provisional ballots can be cast and ban ballot harvesting.

Here is more from Trending Politics:

“The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two Arizona voting restrictions that a lower court had said discriminated against minority voters, a ruling that suggests that it will be harder to successfully challenge a spate of new laws passed by state legislatures in the aftermath of the 2020 election,” the Washington Post reported.

“Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion in the 6-to-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative majority in charge,” the report continued. “The court’s liberals joined an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan protesting that the decision weakens the shield provided by the Voting Rights Act (VRA), first passed in 1965 to forbid laws that result in discrimination based on race.”

Alito said that Arizona’s law generally makes it ‘easy to vote’ and he sided with the state’s election laws.

“In these cases, we are called upon for the first time to apply §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to regulations that govern how ballots are collected and counted,” Alito wrote in his opinion. “Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. All voters may vote by mail or in person for nearly a month before election day, but
Arizona imposes two restrictions that are claimed to be unlawful. First, in some counties, voters who choose to cast a ballot in person on election day must vote in their own precincts or else their ballots will not be counted. Second, mailin ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an election official, a mail carrier, or a voter’s family member,
household member, or caregiver.”

The justice proceeds to discuss the Voting Rights Act and related lawsuits before rendering his opinion.

“In light of the principles set out above, neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA,” Alito states. “Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule enforces the requirement that voters who choose to vote in person on election day must do so in their assigned precincts. Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting’… On the contrary, these tasks are quintessential examples of the usual burdens of voting. Not only are these unremarkable burdens, but the District Court’s uncontested findings show that the State made extensive efforts to reduce their impact on the number of valid votes ultimately cast.”

Alito makes an interesting note that statistics have been manipulated in many cases to make misleading arguments that voter laws suppress minority votes.

“The Court of Appeals attempted to paint a different picture, but its use of statistics was highly misleading for reasons that were well explained by Judge Easterbrook in a §2 case involving voter IDs,” Alito states. “As he put it, a distorted picture can be created by dividing one percentage by another… He gave this example: ‘If 99.9% of whites had photo IDs, and 99.7% of blacks did,’ it could be said that ‘blacks are three times as likely as whites to lack qualifying ID’ (0.3 ÷ 0.1 = 3), but such a statement would mask the fact that the populations were effectively identical.”

There is no reason that the laws should be relaxed to allow anyone to vote in an election.

The only people that should be allowed to vote are the people that are citizens of this nation and not just anyone who is here.

This method has worked for decades and the only reason why they want it changed now is since people are waking up and seeing just how horrible the Democrats truly are.

They know that they can not win an election if they do not cheat.

I pray and hope that this ruling helps and protects the citizens of our country from the Democrats and their sneaky ways but we know they won’t stop till they have complete control.

 

The Daily Allegiant