Use code TPM for up to 66% off at MyPillow.com

ADVERTISEMENT
American News Jul 6, 2021 6:09 PM EST

WATCH: Dinesh D'Souza discusses the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on voter integrity

Conservative commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza discussed the Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling on voter integrity and said that states will now be able to take the proper precautions to ensure US elections are safe and secure.

WATCH: Dinesh D'Souza discusses the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on voter integrity
Katie Daviscourt Seattle, WA

This article was published more than 1 year ago, information might not be up to date.

Conservative commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza discussed the Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling on voter integrity and said that states will now be able to take the proper precautions to ensure US elections are safe and secure.

D'Souza read the ruling from Supreme Court Justice Alito which states: "Voters who choose to cast a ballot in person or on Election Day must vote in their own precincts or else their ballots will not be counted. That's provision number one."

"Number Two, mail-in-ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an election official, a mail carrier or a voter's family member, household member, or caregiver," D'Souza continued.

Although the provisions made by the Supreme Court to uphold election integrity is common sense, those on the left of the political aisle claim the provisions are discriminatory against minorities as they "make it harder to vote."

However, D'Souza described the sharp contrast of views and a contrast of legal reasoning in which SCOTUS ruled upon regarding Arizona's election integrity.

Those against election integrity argued to the High Court that implementing stricter voting laws is unconstitutional as it goes against the Voting Rights Act; however, in order to rule in favor of the Voting Rights Act, the law must be discriminatory in intent—which the Supreme Court's ruling on election integrity fails to fall under that category as it is not a law that is subjected to a specific group of people but rather nationwide.

Alito ruled that every state has a "strong and legitimate interest in preventing fraud" and said that "fraud can undermine public confidence."

"Voters should be able to vote without intimidation or undue influence," Alito added, which is why there are "private voting booths."

Alito also stated that "a law is not discriminatory even if its impact falls unevenly on different groups," which is progressive's main argument against the implementation of voting laws. "The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity," Alito said.

Alito went on to slam the left's argument that it's a burden for minority groups to have travel to polling places does not exceed the "usual burdens of voting."

Ads by revcontent

Join and support independent free thinkers!

We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Support The Post Millennial