90 Miles From Tyranny

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

AG Merrick Garland Calls Voter ID Laws ‘Unnecessary’

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Sunday said his agency is “fighting back.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland on March 3 declared that efforts by states to implement voter ID laws are “unnecessary” and “burdensome,” drawing the ire of Republicans.

While speaking at a church Selma, Alabama, the attorney general was commemorating the 59th anniversary of the targeting of demonstrators by Selma police during an early civil rights protest.

He said that the right to vote “is still under attack,” though he provided little evidence in his speech for how requiring identification would be an assault on voting rights.

“There are many things that are open to debate in America,” Mr. Garland stated. “One thing that must not be open for debate is the right of all eligible citizens to vote and to have their vote counted.”

The attorney general said the Department of Justice is “fighting back” against states that have passed bills requiring identification that would prove such eligibility to cast ballots.
“One of the first things I did when I came into office was to double the size of the voting section of the civil rights division,” Mr. Garland said. “That is why we are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions to implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes, and voter ID requirements.”

“Those measures include practices and procedures that make voting more difficult; redistricting maps that disadvantage minorities; and changes in voting administration that diminish the authority of locally elected or nonpartisan election administrators,” he said. “Such measures threaten the foundation of our system of government.”

The attorney general also accused courts of issuing rulings that, according to him, imperil U.S. voting rights.

“Court decisions in recent years have drastically weakened the protections of the Voting Rights Act that marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge bled for 59 years ago,“ he said. ”And since those decisions, there has been a dramatic increase in legislative measures that make it harder for millions of eligible voters to vote and to elect the...

The 90 Miles Mystery Video: Nyctophilia Edition #1668

Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,

Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.

If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.

Please Leave Silently Into The Night......

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #2376

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,

from the beautiful to the repugnant,

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,

you could be inspired, you could be appalled.

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.

You have been warned.

Girls With Guns

Visage à trois #2162

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #1647

Visage à trois #2160

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #1649

SCOTUS Unanimously Rules States Cannot Disqualify Trump from 2024 Ballot

WASHINGTON, DC – Colorado cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court said only Congress can disqualify a candidate from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Insurrection Clause,” overturning a 4-3 opinion in December from the Colorado Supreme Court that the provision prohibits former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the presidency in 2024.

That ruling partially reversed a prior ruling in November that Trump is not an officer of the United States as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Amendment therefore cannot be used to disqualify him from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot.

This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court wrote:
Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment expanded federal power at the expense of state autonomy and thus fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution. […]
The court continued:

Section 3 works by imposing on certain individuals a preventive and severe penalty—disqualification from holding a wide array of offices—rather than by granting rights to all. It is therefore necessary, as Chief Justice Chase concluded and the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognized, to ‘ascertain what particular individuals are embraced’ by the provision. […]

Chase went on to explain that to accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable. […]

The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment. […]

The court went on to note that Congress did so by passing the Enforcement Act of 1870.

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. […]

Granting the States that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power. […]

Nor have the respondents identified any tradition of state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders or candidates in the years following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a lack of historical precedent is generally a telling indication of a severe constitutional problem with the asserted power. […]

The patchwork that would likely result from state enforcement would sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States as a whole. […]

Barrett said that the majority decided more than necessary, and she doesn’t want to join that.

However, she also says, “All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”

“In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for...