Richard Wolfe: Battle rages on to keep facts separate from ideology

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word “fact” as a piece of information “presented as having objective reality.” This implies an experience independent of individual thought and, at the same time, perceptible by all observers. Facts are empirically supportable and verifiable. They can’t be altered by ideology.

An allegation of fraud is contingent upon fact. A fraud either is or is not in evidence. It can run the gamut from minor fraud (such as insisting, falsely, that a cashier has returned the wrong change) to catastrophic criminal fraud. Bernie Madoff’s epic Ponzi scheme is a textbook example of the latter.

Likewise, election fraud. It’s either there or it’s not there, and a matter of degree. There is evidence of a few instances in Pennsylvania, for example, where voters have applied for a ballot in the name of a dead relative in order to vote twice for the deposed president. Conversely, there is no evidence whatsoever, after countless court cases and audits, of anything that could be considered systemic or consequential election fraud.

If a given statute is vague or confusing its application is likely to be inconsistent across different venues. When “black letter” law is found insufficient, necessary interpretation should ideally confine itself to attendant facts in evidence. But, judges are human and thus personal biases are always present, although they mustn’t insist their ideologies should supersede facts.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. By far, the most hypocritical feature of Alito’s scribbling is found in its judicial activism, which has, ironically, always been demonized as a liberal sin. But the hypocrisy is not Sam’s alone. The other five Republican justices — including the Chief Justice — joined in support.

The case at issue was narrowly drawn and only required a narrowly drawn response. Alito, nevertheless, could not help himself. The temptation to inject his ideology was simply too great. This paragon of judicial restraint presented no factual validation for his rambling expansion of the case into areas near and dear to adherents of the Big Lie.

Justice Alito’s opinion repeatedly lectures about voter fraud being a risk. But the defendant state of Arizona (from whence Brnovich originated) could not point to any fraud to justify its restrictive laws. Nevertheless:

“Fraud is a real risk that accompanies mail-in voting even if Arizona had the good fortune to avoid it. Election fraud has had serious consequences in other states. For example, the North Carolina Board of Elections invalidated the results of a 2018 race for a seat in the House of Representatives for evidence of fraudulent mail-in ballots. The Arizona Legislature was not obligated to wait for something similar to happen closer to home.”

The fact that North Carolina had in place effective legal mechanisms to address fraudulent mail-in ballots after their being cast, and after investigation, was lost on Justice Alito’s paper-thin concern regarding “something similar [happening] closer to home.” The factual basis for the North Carolina case, that being documented “evidence,” stands in strong rebuke to Alito’s fact free meandering.

The concepts here are not complicated. You put up speed limit signs on the highway and then prosecute violators, based on evidence. You don’t install speed bumps every 100 yards to ensure no one could ever possibly speed. Even if the latter guarantees the “good fortune to avoid” speeding.

And there’s more.

Alito’s arguments revived the states’ rights strategy trumpeted by mid-20th-century segregationists (and Civil War secessionists). He held that state legislatures could cite an interest in policing (all but non-existent) voter fraud as a pretext to pass stricter new election laws.

A similar pretext was employed for “literacy tests” in the southern U.S. during the Jim Crow era. The justification then used was an uneducated person lacked the necessary knowledge and sophistication to cast a vote responsibly. But the reality was Blacks needed to be disenfranchised.

Justice Alito has paved the way for states to once again disenfranchise vast swaths of voters demographically. But only some swaths.

You can rest assured, in states with Republican-held legislatures, the installation of speed bumps on roads used mostly by people of color will occur apace.

Thank goodness for gubernatorial vetoes.

— Community Columnist Richard Wolfe is a resident of Park Township. Contact him at wolf86681346@gmail.com. 

*** This article has been archived for your research. The original version from HollandSentinel.com can be found here ***