In majority opinion, Alito shamelessly bows to GOP talking points
With his reckless and dubious majority opinion on Arizona’s suppressive voting law, Justice Samuel Alito has thoroughly disgraced himself (“Supreme Court upholds Ariz. voting restrictions,” Page A2, July 2). He voices the fear of possible election fraud as a part of the basis of his conclusions in the face of virtually every competent authority in every state in this nation avowing that the 2020 election was the most secure ever.
Alito essentially regurgitates the statements of Republican governors all over the United States to the effect that “sure, the last election went well, but we’re hearing so many people who question the result.” The effect of all this has been guilt by innuendo, followed promptly by the enactment of statutes that would do any 1960s Jim Crow politician proud.
Advertisement
Alito’s argument is pure contemporary right-wing sophistry, so increasingly prevalent in this nation, but so beneath the dignity of a Supreme Court justice. Shame on him.
Harvey Schmidt
Gardner
Court treats voting and religious rights differently
Voting and religious rights are enshrined in the Constitution. Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has consistently treated them disparately.
The court has imposed stringent tests that demand that the state demonstrate that any regulation of religion has a compelling public interest. This, in and of itself, is not bad.
However, the court has treated voting rights almost dismissively. The state merely has to enunciate an interest that elections be secure and fair. But when the court ignores impact except the most egregious and puts the weight on the voter to demonstrate that a law’s intent was discriminatory, it has created an almost insurmountable barrier to challenging the state.
Under this court, our right to engage in our faith is secure, but the same cannot be said for our right to vote.
Henry Schwarzberg
Lexington
