Yes, well, this is one of the few, relatively few, surprisingly few 6-3 along ideological decisions, but this was straight down party lines.
I guess I have three reactions. The first is, it’s always worth reminding this is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist. There is no voting fraud, or no major voting fraud. All these state rules, we don’t need them. They’re just in service to the Trump lie that the election was stolen.
Second, the intent, I have every reason to believe the intent of the legislatures in all these places was to help their party, the — basically, a white Republican Party, and, therefore, they’re trying to make it harder for people in the other party to vote. I imagine that’s their intent.
The impact is the crucial thing here. Is their disparate impact? And I only look at this from looking at the research. I don’t look at it legally. But the research suggests the impact of all these kinds of voting changes is pretty minimal.
Over the last 15 years — certainly not in the days of Jim Crow. It was not minimal back then. But in the last 15 years, when states have tried to make it easier to vote or make it a little less easy to vote, the impact on actual voting has not been that great. So, it doesn’t strike me as catastrophic.
But the final thing to be said is, even though the impact is incremental, it’s disparate. African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, they are more likely to be hurt. Even though the effects aren’t big, they’re not equally shared across all groups. So, on the whole, I think the court made a mistake, but it’s probably not a catastrophic one.