Left-wing cable channel MSNBC had a meltdown Thursday morning over the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to affirm Arizona’s law banning ballot harvesting, a common practice among Democrat campaign operatives to go door to door and collect unreturned ballots after election day, and submit them to election boards.
The law also invalidates ballots that are returned to the wrong voting precinct. Naturally, MSNBC likes this practice because it helps their friends in the Democrat Party rig elections in their favor.
Moments after the court’s decision was announced, pseudo reporter Hallie Jackson brought on a panel of left-wing activists to whine and cry about the court’s decision, and how the law was discriminatory against minorities. The anchor turned to Melissa Murray, a former clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, to trash the ruling:
MELISSA MURRAY: Well, I think one of the things that the court has left open in this opinion, which again I think is a pretty severe move to the right on voting rights, but one of the things that's left open is the possibility of voting rights laws that are enacted with a discriminatory purpose in mind. Now, again, this is so much harder to prove mostly because state legislatures
JACKSON: I was going to say, how do you -- how do you prove it? Isn't that the issue? Isn't that something -- justices brought that up in oral arguments? How do you prove that the intent was to discriminate for some of these voting rights, um voting restriction laws that are in place
MURRAY: I think that's the million-dollar question. I mean much more of this kind of work is going to be much more subtle than it was in the Jim Crow era. I think this really is a gutting of this landmark civil rights legislation.
It's MSNBC and their fellow Democrat Party hacks who come off as discriminatory for assuming minority voters are incapable of submitting their ballots on time and to their assigned precinct. It’s clear that Democrats believe minorities can’t handle following simple election rules and regulations that Arizona passed to ensure free and fair elections.
The ends justify the means for the Democrat Party and its left-wing media allies. As long as they win elections, that’s all that matters to them.
This segment was endorsed by American Express and Progressive. Contact them to let them know how you feel about them supporting left-wing bias by visiting our Conservatives Fight Back Page here
To see the relevant transcript, click “expand.”
Hallie Jackson Reports
7/1/2021
10:25 AM
HALLIE JACKSON: So, Melissa, given the way that this opinion has been written, and based on what you've been able to read from it over the last 15 minutes or so that it's been out, 20 minutes or so, can you talk about what legal recourse some of these voting rights advocates might have now in pursuing challenges in other areas, given the way that the Supreme Court has written this decision? What are the -- where do you see openings or opportunities for them to potentially be successful in the legal realm here?
MELISSA MURRAY: Well, I think one of the things that the court has left open in this opinion, which again I think is a pretty severe move to the right on voting rights, but one of the things that's left open is the possibility of voting rights laws that are enacted with a discriminatory purpose in mind. Now, again, this is so much harder to prove mostly because state legislatures
JACKSON: I was going to say, how do you -- how do you prove it? Isn't that the issue? Isn't that something -- justices brought that up in oral arguments? How do you prove that the intent was to discriminate for some of these voting rights, um voting restriction laws that are in place?
MURRAY: I think that's the million-dollar question. I mean much more of this kind of work is going to be much more subtle than it was in the Jim Crow era. I think this really is a gutting of this landmark civil rights legislation. As Rick said earlier, this accompanies a severe limitation on constitutional challenges that occurred in 2008 and another voting rights case that came out of Indiana. So there are two major conduits to challenging voting rights laws: the Constitution, and this statute, and you know we’re not seeing this. The next recourse I think is to put this back in Congress's court to enact legislation that will do more to protect voter rights. And I think we've seen some movement on that front but haven't seen a bill get over the finish line. I think that's where everyone will be looking now across the street from the court to Congress.
JACKSON: Layout that thread that Melissa is laying out here and the ones in possession of Congress now. Do you see this changing any minds in Congress at the Capitol behind me here as it relates to enacting some voting rights legislation because of what we’ve seen from the court today?
LATOSHA BROWN: If people were reasonable and rational about voting rights, and about democracy, it should. This is a devastating blow. This is precisely why we need For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Advancement Act. What we’re seeing, we're seeing a politicization of the courts. Let's be mindful that two of those justices that Donald Trump -- who has been openly attacking voting rights particularly of African-American and minority voters -- actually selected and put those two members on the court. So, we have to really recognize that in order for us to really protect voting rights, we have to literally hold congress accountable. We need desperately more than ever -- I think there's a sense of urgency now with the stripping of section five and now with section two being weakened that the voting rights act as it currently stands will not provide the kind of protection we've been seeing communities of color who have been targeted with these voter suppression laws all across the country It is not enough.. We have to have For The People Act, we have to have John Lewis voting advancement act and advocates like myself and other organizations are gearing up to force and enforce this issue. It is not enough. We know it's not enough. What we're seeing -- it's interesting because even in this ruling, the ninth circuit, it was clear that it had a disproportional impact on the indigenous community, communities of color. Yet we still see the court making this ruling. We have to have something stronger to protect the rights, the voting rights of minorities, minority communities in this nation.
JACKSON: Melissa, final thoughts to you at least for the moment.
MURRAY: I think that's exactly right. Often we see the courts and Congress engaged in some kind of dialogue, whether explicitly or implicitly. Here I think, We have the court shutting down one avenue for protecting voting rights and that goes to Congress to continue that dialogue by perhaps opening up another more robust avenue.
