Federal judge: It's too much to expect black voters to actually choose individual candidates

Headshot image of Dan Calabrese
Published by: Dan Calabrese on Friday September 02nd, 2016

Michigan has to keep straight-party ticket voting because it would "disadvantage blacks" if they can't just check Democrat and be done with it.

Never fail to understand this: If a racist is a person who thinks less of an individual because of the color of the individual's skin, then it's beyond any question that the home of racism in this country is on the left.

How else can you explain the latest move of the federal judiciary to block Michigan's ban on straight-party ticket voting? It's right there in the judges' decision:

Instead, the appellate court sent the case back to the same three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit that earlier refused to block a preliminary injunction against the law, issued by U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain in Detroit, who said it was likely the law would unconstitutionally disadvantage black voters.

. . .

Drain ruled that banning straight-party voting would result in longer lines and waiting times to vote. That would disadvantage all voters, but especially black voters because data show the use of straight-party voting is strongest in large Michigan cities such as Detroit, where blacks are concentrated, he said.

Can we just say what we all know here? We might as well since every party in this matter has a partisan interest.

Black voters have a much higher tendency than white voters to vote straight-party ticket, and almost all of them are voting the Democrat ticket. The Republican-controlled Legislature knew this when they passed the bill, and I have no doubt they were motivated in part by their knowledge of this. Mark Brewer, the man who represented the aggrieved parties in this case, is the former chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party. His interest is to make sure that Democrat constituenicies can continue to vote straight party ticket, and can cycle in and out of the voting booth as quickly as possible so more like-minded voters can cycle in and do the same.

No one can deny the partisan interests of either side in this.

But that does leave this question: Why is the Michigan Legislature not permitted to set the state's voting rules? It's not as if it's a radical concept to ban start-party ticket voting. It is only allowed in 10 states. Even if you recognize the partisan motivations of the Legislature, they're still duly elected and the state constitution gives them the authority to decide this question. By what possible constitutional principle can one justify the federal courts swooping in and saying Michigan can make the rules only if it doesn't make this particular rule? The same rule that remains in effect in 40 other states?

The answer, we're told, is that it unduly burdens black voters. Oh? Why is that? If there is no straight-party ticket voting, then the requirement for black voters to make choices up and down the ballot is no different than it is for anyone else. White Republican voters in Bloomfield Hills will have to individual select candidates for state representative, Congress, mayor, city council and all other partisan officer, just like black Democrats in Detroit will have to do. The requirement will be the same for everyone.

But, you say, the lines will be longer! So? The lines will also be longer everywhere. Is there something about long lines that are a particular problem for black voters?

Of course not. This is about one thing and one thing only: Democrats think they've got black voters trained to just vote straight-party Democrat and walk out, preferably quickly, so the next black voter can also come in and quickly vote straight-party Democrat, so the next black voter . . .

You get the idea. This law doesn't unduly burden blacks. It unduly burdens Democrats, who count on this dynamic every year to help them dominate inner-city voting.

You might think this court ruling is just a Michigan issue, and thus it only interests me because that's where I live. You'd be wrong. When the federal courts can strike down a perfectly legitimate state law, passed by a duly elected legislative body and consistent with the law of 40 other states - just because it presents a political problem for one party - then federalism no longer exists, and the 10th Amendment means nothing.

And that is exactly how the Democrats want it.

Get Dan's three-part series of Christian spiritual thrillers! And follow all of Dan's work by liking his page on Facebook.