SCOTUS Hears Case And NPR Propagandizes Arguments About Ballot Collection Case AZ

A small and decentralized American government, as founded, that Conservative/Populists love is the focus of the unified left because of its challenge to their personal authority and also because of the amount of wealth that so many people hold. Their driving fantasies are to gather up all those powerful goodies and take all of them for themselves. The left is the reverse Robin Hood.

Consider how NPR, taxpayer-funded National Public Radio, has framed this story as an example of how the deceitful left works:

(Feel the propaganda)

“The U.S. Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to uphold Arizona’s restrictive voting laws, setting the stage for what happens in the coming months and years, as Republican-dominated state legislatures seek to make voting more difficult.

Since the November election and President Trump’s false claims that the balloting was rigged, Republican-run state legislatures have raced to pass new laws that would curb the modern-day expansion of the right to vote. Many of these laws likely will be challenged in court, and on Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could set the parameters for which of those restrictive laws survive and which don’t.

The Voting Rights Act, first passed in 1965, makes it illegal for states to enact laws that result in voting discrimination based on race. Eight years ago, the conservative court, by a 5-to-4 vote, gutted one of the two major parts of the law. Now, it is the other major section that is in the conservative court’s crosshairs.

Tuesday’s case involved two Arizona laws. One bars the counting of provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The other bars the collection of absentee ballots by anyone other than a family member or caregiver.”

As most people know, there were many, many problems with the 2020 Presidential election, including shocking theft of Constitutional power away from State Legislature to make election law, and handed to State Governors and Secretary of States to expand the number of eligible voters to count, to some very corrupt places- guided by corrupt attorney Marc Ellias, who delights in the way he has bastardized the electrical landscape while benefitting from the COVID pandemic.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments over Arizona voting restrictions in a pair of consolidated cases challenging a state law banning ballot collection and a policy that tosses ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Democrats have sued, saying the rules discriminate against minorities and violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The case could have big implications outside of Arizona if the justices create a test for how to evaluate such voting rights cases under the voting rights legislation.

COULD THE SUPREMES GET THIS ONE RIGHT?

This week there is one last case in front of the frightened US Supreme Court, who have basically said over the past few months that there is no election law, it doesn’t matter if Republicans were shut out of the observation of counting votes, and they really don’t care if Americans feel their votes were stolen.

However, one last remaining case in front of them, which I reported on back in November, has gotten the attention of the left, including NPR, and they are distraught that the Supremes seem to be taking something seriously and listening to a Republican about their concerns over distorting the eligibility of legal ballots for voting.

Here is some background on the case in front of the US Supreme Court; Democrats claim that minorities need a super high amount of help from many people to get their vote cast:

https://t.co/1gQgbF4C4m

— Kari Baxter Donovan🇺🇸🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇮🇪🇩🇰🏴 (@Saorsa1776) March 3, 2021

Tuesday’s case involved two Arizona laws. One bars the counting of provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The other bars the collection of absentee ballots by anyone other than a family member or caregiver.

NPR propagandized the case further and reported:

“State Republicans and the Republican National Committee argued that both laws are needed to prevent fraud, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It found no record of ballot fraud, but it did find evidence that the two laws make voting more difficult for minorities who often live in huge rural areas without a nearby post office or mail route.

Tuesday’s Supreme Court argument focused on what standard the court should use to determine whether these laws or others like them, resulting in unconstitutional discrimination against minority voters. And the justices’ questions appeared to be plucked straight from the headlines.

Justice Elena Kagan, on the liberal side of the court, led off, quizzing Republican lawyer Michael Carvin with a series of hypotheticals that sounded very much like some of the laws proposed by the GOP since the November election.

Suppose, Kagan said, that “a state has long had two weeks of early voting and then the state decides that it’s going to get rid of Sunday voting” during those two weeks, and suppose the evidence is that Black voters cast their ballots on Sunday 10 times more often than white voters. “Is that system equally open?” she asked.

“I think it would be,” replied Carvin, because “Sunday is the day we traditionally close government offices.”

Because, of course, minorities are unlike everyone else, and they can’t do the things the rest of the people do- that is what the left demands we embrace so they can completely overthrow our electrical system and our Republic.

You know, in fairness and equality.

Kari Donovan

Kari is an ex-Community Organizer who writes about Voter Engagement, Cultural Marxism and Campaigns. She has been a grassroots volunteer with the GOP, on and off for 18 years. She is a Homeschool Mom in North Carolina and loves Photojournalism and Citizen Journalism. @Saorsa1776