At the center of Democrats’ arguments is the false claim that the “wet” signature requirement violated the “materiality provision” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and, therefore, disenfranchised voters. As noted by the court, Congress originally enacted that provision to combat barriers (e.g., literacy tests) instituted by state and local governments to disenfranchise potential black voters. During a previous interview with The Federalist, RITE President Derek Lyons described how leftist lawyers are currently abusing the provision by using it as a “tool to get into federal court to try and dismantle state election laws.”
Forcing the state to have an easy way to register is not a form of “dismantling” election laws. And online registration is in fact an important way for impoverished people to register, as they often do not have the time/money to be able to register in person.
So natural republicans realize that black people (statistically the most impoverished demographic, and most blue demographic) frequently register to vote this way, are seeking to disenfranchise them by blocking this method of registration.
There you go, hope you enjoyed this joke of an article.
Here it is for you, here is your joke:
Forcing the state to have an easy way to register is not a form of “dismantling” election laws. And online registration is in fact an important way for impoverished people to register, as they often do not have the time/money to be able to register in person.
So natural republicans realize that black people (statistically the most impoverished demographic, and most blue demographic) frequently register to vote this way, are seeking to disenfranchise them by blocking this method of registration.
There you go, hope you enjoyed this joke of an article.
Lol, what a BS claim.
Having been poor, growing up in a poor area, those claims are complete BS.
Great talk, real convincing.