Biden-appointed judge badly misconstrues law
- Biden-appointed Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blocks feds from scrubbing voter rolls via citizenship cross-check, calling it a civil rights violation.
- Court declares laws meant to stop eligible voters from being denied the ballot are actually about maximizing raw ballot counts, even if some aren't legal.
- Accuracy vs. access: Judge treats removal of dead, non-citizens, and double-voters as a bigger threat than the dilution of legitimate votes.
- Critics say judge's 'turnout max' theory inverts the 15th Amendment's purpose, prioritizing power over election integrity.
Brief Summary
In a ruling that would make the late Justice Scalia spin in his grave, Biden-appointed Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has declared that federal efforts to cross-check state voter rolls against citizenship databases are a violation of civil rights. The judge claims these laws exist to inflate the number of ballots cast, not to protect the franchise from being diluted by non-citizens and the deceased. The article argues this is a colossal misreading of history, noting the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were designed to stop discrimination against eligible Black voters, not to set up a turnstile for illegal ballots. By framing list maintenance as hostile to democracy, the judge is allegedly putting power politics above the only principle that matters: ensuring every legally cast vote counts equally. The only metric that seems to matter is piling up ballots, regardless of whether they came from a citizen, a corpse, or the same person twice.
Why This Matters
This ruling hits home for anyone who cares about whether their vote actually means something. If non-citizens, dead people, and out-of-state fraudsters can be kept on the rolls with a judge's blessing, every lawful vote you cast is effectively diluted by a fictional one. The judge's logic suggests the government should be blind to eligibility, turning election integrity into a punchline. It's not about keeping legitimate voters from the booth; it's about ensuring the booth is only occupied by those entitled to be there. If this legal nonsense stands, your constitutional right to an equal vote gets a middle finger from the bench, all in the name of 'civil rights'.