Following the SCOTUS opinion that upheld Ohio’s right to purge old voting rolls, Sotomayor wrote an dissenting opinion that did not discuss the constitutionality of the majority opinion. She launched into a community organizer, SJW rant about disenfranchisement.
The case dealt with whether Ohio was violating law, not whether their politics were correct.
The wise Latina fails to distinguish that difference, like all goon squad leftist activist jurists. It’s why these cretins should be kept off the bench.
Justice Alito, joined by Kennedy, Roberts, Gorsuch and Thomas, found that the Ohio process complied with the law. The alleged legal violation, that Ohio relied on mere non-voting to strike someone from the voter rolls, was not consistent with the facts. Ohio used a process, allowed by the statute, of sending a card to people who have not voted for two years asking them to confirm whether they have moved. If the card is not returned, the person would not be removed unless the person did not vote in the subsequent two federal election cycles. So it would take a total of 6 years not voting PLUS failure to return the card to be removed.
Justice Breyer wrote a dissent disagreeing with the statutory construction of the majority.
But it was Justice Sotomayor’s dissent which evoked the particular ire of the majority, who saw it as a policy disagreement with Congress:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent says nothing about what is relevant in this case—namely, the language of the NVRA—but instead accuses us of “ignor[ing] the history of voter suppression” in this country and of “uphold[ing] a program that appears to further the . . . disenfranchisement of minority and low-income voters.” Post, at 5. Those charges are misconceived.
The NVRA prohibits state programs that are discriminatory, see §20507(b)(1), but respondents did not assert a claim under that provision. And JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR has not pointed to any evidence in the record that Ohio instituted or has carried out its program with discriminatory intent.
* * *
The dissents have a policy disagreement, not just with Ohio, but with Congress. But this case presents a question of statutory interpretation, not a question of policy. We have no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio’s Supplemental Process is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date. The only question before us is whether it violates federal law. It does not.
The judgment of the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
And sure enough, Sotomayor’s dissent (starting at page 54 of the pdf.) read like a political manifesto: