|House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)|
- On Thursday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, said that provisions in Arizona's election law requiring in-person voters to show up at their correct precinct to vote and limiting ballot collection efforts (sometimes called "ballot harvesting") do not have a sufficient discriminatory effect so as to violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
- This decision highlights what is the likely result as the Biden administration, via the Justice Department, attempts to mount legal changes to Republican state legislatures' post-2020 election efforts to change voting procedures. While these bills have as their motivation Trump's Big Lie of voter fraud in the 2020 election, most of the changes are actually innocuous and will have a very limited, if any, impact on voter turnout. Yet, the media and the Democrats continue to label these changes as "voter restrictions" or "voter suppression."
- I've said this a hundred times, the Democrats need to be less focused on the casting of votes and a lot more concerned on the counting of those votes. If the next election is stolen, it will be because of the latter, not the former.
- I can't say I'm surprised that the conviction of comedian Bill Cosby was overturned. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court focused on the fact Cosby was led to believe he had immunity from criminal prosecution when he admitted the facts used to incriminate him. That was a violation of the 5th Amendment. Our criminal justice system operates within a system of rules which protects those accused of a crime. One of those rules is that if a person is granted immunity from prosecution, that immunity bars a subsequent prosecution. Do I regret that Cosby's victims are left without recourse? Absolutely. But we can't apply rules selectively, i.e. just against the really bad people who do bad things. Those rules protect all of us and have be enforced for everyone if they are going to have any validity.
- The Court did not consider the length of time between the acts and the decision to prosecute him. I'm very concerned with states enacting extremely lengthy statutes of limitation when it comes to filing a civil lawsuit or prosecuting someone for a sexual assault or similar crimes. Recently, a civil lawsuit was dismissed against Kevin Spacey for something he supposedly did decades earlier. The case had to be dropped when the alleged victim insisted on being cloaked in anonymity.
- Statutes of limitation exist for a reason. As the years pass, memories fade, potential evidence gets lost, witnesses die. While one has to feel extreme compassion for the victims of sexual assault, that doesn't mean we should allow limitless criminal and civil litigation against those accused. The accused are still entitled to due process and in a case in which the events happened decades earlier, that just doesn't seem possible.