I'm not even sure I read this right:
Judge Frank Easterbrook of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said those challenging Wisconsin’s voting laws were contending that Democrats can expand voting rules to help their party at the polls but Republicans can’t tighten them to their advantage. “That can’t be right,” he said during arguments in a pair of Wisconsin cases
Ah, there is a difference? One party is encouraging more voters to go to the polls, regardless of party, the other wants to…”tighten” the voter rules? And “that can't be right?”
A Statement by then-state Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) that Republicans needed to pass the voter ID law because of how it would affect Milwaukee neighborhoods and college campuses….
Bruce Spiva, an attorney for the groups challenging the voting laws, called her statement “extraordinary” and an explicit sign Republicans meant to make it difficult to vote for minorities and other Democratic-leaning voters.
The appeals judges were skeptical. “You say explicit statements, but they’re not as explicit as you describe them,” Judges Michael Kanne said.
You've got to be trying real hard to make these absurd arguments. Imagine what the judges said that didn't make this article.
A former liberal radio talk host who likes to ask the “follow-up question” at Democurmudgeon.blogspot.com