ABC, CBS, and NBC were irate Thursday night after the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling that preserved Arizona’s election integrity laws, spelling doom for liberal efforts to undo conservative-backed election protections. In the course of a few months, the liberal media went from declaring any criticism of the Supreme Court an ‘attack on democracy’ to accusing the same court of giving Republicans the “green light” to target minorities and “restrict voting access.”
The coverage on ABC’s World News Tonight was by far the slimiest as fill-in anchor Linsey David and senior national correspondent Terry Moran led the way in flinging all matter of smears and lies.
“The conservative majority upholding two Arizona voting restrictions that opponents claim would unfairly result in racial discrimination,” Davis announced. And according to Moran, “the Supreme Court today gave a green light” to Republican legislatures that were supposedly trying to “make voting more difficult, especially for minorities.”
After scoffing at criticism of the dubious tactic known as ballot harvesting and the idea that votes should only count in the right precinct, Moran had a bone to pick with conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, accusing him of not caring about Native Americans:
Voting rights activists offered evidence that these laws impact Native Americans and other minorities more than whites in Arizona and claimed they violated the Voting Rights Act. But in today's ruling. Justice Samuel Alito writing for the court, brushed that evidence aside, saying the burden on minority voters was minor. “Mere inconvenience cannot be enough to justify a violation of the voting rights act,” Alito wrote.
And in wrapping up, Davis touted Biden’s DOJ for target Georgia over their election integrity laws and wanted to know what lessons Attorney General Merrick Garland had learned.
In his response, Moran was appalled that Democrats actually needed to provide evidence in court that their accusations were true. “They'll need more evidence, meticulous evidence or evidence they were passed with a discriminatory intent. And that's hard,” he whined.
Over on the CBS Evening News, anchor Norah O’Donnell had a similar hyperbolic warning about the future of voting. “Well, the Supreme Court ended its term today with a major decision on voting rights. The justices upheld voting restrictions in Arizona,” she lied. “And their decision could have a profound effect in a number of states.”
And after scoffing as Moran did, legal correspondent Jan Crawford moaned about the majority opinion. “Neither provision, the court said in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, violated the Voting Rights Act because they were ‘not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose’ and states have a legitimate interest in preventing fraud,” she huffed.
Crawford would go on to praise the opinion of the liberal justices and how Democrats planned to respond:
But liberal justices said the decision undermines the Voting Rights Act because laws like Arizona's can be a barrier to minority voting. In a statement, President Biden said he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision and called on Congress to pass new legislation.
At the same time, his Justice Department is suing one statement, Georgia, saying its new voting law intentionally discriminates against black voters.
Anchor Lester “fairness is overrated” Holt took aim at Republicans directly as he led into the segment on NBC Nightly News. “An important ruling on voting rights tonight from the U.S. Supreme Court. It's one that civil liberties groups say will make it harder to challenge the dozens of restrictions now being passed by Republican lawmakers,” he sneered.
NBC legal correspondent Pete Williams described the case as “a major test of the landmark Voting Rights Act” and groaned about how “a vote of 6-3, with the court's liberals dissenting, the court upheld the restrictions.”
And after lauding the “blistering dissent” from Justice Elena Kagan, he lamented: “Election law experts say the court now leaves few legal weapons to challenge new voting restrictions recently passed in nearly 20 states.”
Interestingly, none of the networks gave any airtime to the other major Supreme Court decision released Thursday, which ruled that nonprofits, including ones of political nature, didn’t have to disclose who their donors were.
The irate ranting and unfounded smears from the networks against the Supreme Court was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships CarFax on ABC, Amazon on CBS, and Liberty Mutual on NBC. Their contact information is linked so you can tell them about the biased news they fund.
The transcripts are below, click "expand" to read:
ABC’s World News Tonight
July 1, 2021
6:41:55 p.m. EasternLINSEY DAVIS: Next, the major Supreme Court decision on voting rights. The conservative majority upholding two Arizona voting restrictions that opponents claim would unfairly result in racial discrimination. With more on what this ruling might signal for the hundreds of other measures like it currently working their way through state legislatures, we go to ABC's Terry Moran.
[Cuts to video]
TERRY MORAN: With states across the country passing new laws that make voting more difficult, especially for minorities, the Supreme Court today gave a green light.
By a 6-3 vote, the conservative majority upheld two election laws in Arizona. One criminalizes the collection of ballots by third parties, dubbed “ballot harvesting” by critics. The other requires election officials to throw out ballots cast at the wrong precinct.
Voting rights activists offered evidence that these laws impact Native Americans and other minorities more than whites in Arizona and claimed they violated the Voting Rights Act. But in today's ruling. Justice Samuel Alito writing for the court, brushed that evidence aside, saying the burden on minority voters was minor. “Mere inconvenience cannot be enough to justify a violation of the voting rights act,” Alito wrote.
In an impassioned dissent, Justice Elena Kagan writing for the court's liberals declared, what is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about the end of discrimination in voting.
And in Arizona, Native American activists said the ruling will make it harder for them to vote.
ALEX GULOTTA (Arizona Voting Rights Advocate): Only 26 percent of Native Americans live on a postal route, meaning you can't get mail at home in most places. And that's why ballot collection matters.
[Cuts back to live]
DAVIS: Terry Moran joins us now. Terry, President Biden put out a statement today, saying he was extremely disappointed in the court's decision. Terry, the President has made it clear that he and his attorney general, Merrick Garland will be fighting these state measures that they say restrict voting access. What are they learning from this case?
MORAN: They're learning it's going to be harder for the Justice Department or anyone else to challenge these new laws, to prove that they have a discriminatory impact on minorities. They'll need more evidence, meticulous evidence or evidence they were passed with a discriminatory intent. And that's hard. But President Biden in that statement vowed to continue the fight, saying, democracy is on the line. Linsey?
DAVIS: Terry, thank you.
CBS Evening News
July 1, 2021
6:42:49 p.m. EasternNORAH O’DONNELL: Well, the Supreme Court ended its term today with a major decision on voting rights. The justices upheld voting restrictions in Arizona. And their decision could have a profound effect in a number of states. Here's CBS's Jan Crawford.
[Cuts to video]
JAN CRAWFORD: It was seen as an important test for new restrictions on voting. Arizona provisions on the books for years that kick out votes cast in the wrong precinct and ban so-called “ballot harvesting,” where third parties, other than family, collect and turn in absentee ballots.
Neither provision, the court said in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, violated the Voting Rights Act because they were “not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose” and states have a legitimate interest in preventing fraud.
That's something Arizona's Attorney General Mark Brnovich argued.
MARK BRNOVICH: We want to make sure that everyone has the ability and the right to exercise the franchise, but we also want to make sure everyone has confidence in the process and they respect the results. And that's what these laws are designed to do.
CRAWFORD: But liberal justices said the decision undermines the Voting Rights Act because laws like Arizona's can be a barrier to minority voting.
In a statement, President Biden said he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision and called on Congress to pass new legislation.
At the same time, his Justice Department is suing one statement, Georgia, saying its new voting law intentionally discriminates against black voters. The decision today may make that lawsuit more difficult, and as states pass more restrictive voting laws, the message from the justices is clear.
DEREK MULLER (University of Iowa Law School professor): This is another sign from the Supreme Court that these are going to be quintessential political judgment left to the political branches of the state, and it's going to be increasingly difficult to challenge them in court.
(…)
NBC Nightly News
July 1, 2021
7:14:16 p.m. EasternLESTER HOLT: An important ruling on voting rights tonight from the U.S. Supreme Court. It's one that civil liberties groups say will make it harder to challenge the dozens of restrictions now being passed by Republican lawmakers. Here’s Pete Williams with that.
[Cuts to video]
PETE WILLIAMS: In a major test of the landmark Voting Rights Act, the court took up two restrictions in Arizona. One allowing the state to throw out votes cast in the wrong precinct, and another that said only voters, their family members, or caregivers can turn in a person's mail ballot.
Democrats said both made it harder for minorities to vote. But by a vote of 6-3, with the court's liberals dissenting, the court upheld the restrictions.
Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion said all voting laws impose some burden, and they don't cross the line even if they create small disparities in voting as long as the state has some justification for them.
But in a blistering dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the court ignores that voter discrimination is getting worse. She said the ruling weakens the voting rights act, a law that “stands as a monument to America's greatest greatness and protects against its basest impulses.”
Election law experts say the court now leaves few legal weapons to challenge new voting restrictions recently passed in nearly 20 states.
RICHARD HASEN (University of Cali. Irvine Law professor): There’s really not much left. All of the major tools have been significantly weakened or eliminated.
(…)
