Supreme Court

One of the strangest things in American politics is the partisan debate over the issue of whether voters should have to produce identification when they show up at the polls. Democrat politicos constantly argue against states that want to require ID to vote in elections, branding those efforts as “racist.” 

It’s never explained, of course, why asking for a driver’s license or state ID card disadvantages black or Hispanic voters.. But the way Democrats talk you’d think it was the equivalent of a poll tax designed to keep “po, ignunt” black folks from being able to exercise their franchise. 

But how? Do black people truly not have driver’s licenses? Is there something about being dark-skinned that makes it hard or impossible to get the standard ID that everyone uses daily to buy booze, or cigarettes, or any other adult item? Obviously not, but in a country where the left half is primed to see whites as devils fixin’ to git them blacks, it plays well. 

Vice President and now Democrat Party presidential nominee—she who has suddenly “become black” despite building her image on her Indian heritage on her mother’s side—Kamal Harris recently came under fire for requiring identification to enter one of her rallies in Phoenix. The least-popular vice president in history has a history of calling voter ID laws racist. 

Well, the worm has turned at the Supreme Court, which just issued a 5-4 decision allowing an even more “controversial” requirement to go forward in Arizona. SCOTUS said Arizona can force potential voters to prove that they are U.S. citizens if the would-be voter tries to register to vote using Arizona’s state form. 

Over 40,000 people are registered to vote in federal elections in Arizona who haven’t provided proof of citizenship.

The vote was 5-4 on allowing limited enforcement of the law. One conservative Justice, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The court, in a brief order, did not explain its reasoning for how four justices could possibly take this stance.

It’s incredible that such an issue had to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. It raises the question: “Who thinks there’s something wrong with making sure illegal aliens don’t vote in U.S. elections?” Democrats, that’s who.

Let’s look at what social media users have to say about it on X (formerly Twitter). 

It’s hard to argue against this guy’s point:

It boggles the rational mind:

We’d like to agree with this next one, and in a sane world, she would be right. But when one side of the aisle sees illegal aliens as a means to getting more Congressional seats when the census comes (did you know that districting is done off census numbers, which count and include everyone, even illegal aliens?), it’s easy to see why Democrats don’t like proof of citizenship laws.