New York Times Tilts Against ‘Shenanigans’ Like Requiring Voters to Prove Citizenship

The first issue of democracy is how elections are conducted. The New York TimesIt is not uncommon for the paper to be eager to promote the partisan Democrat view. The paper tilted left Friday in three articles on election issues in Arizona and New York. 

The paper painted Democratic hacks as non-partisan while invariably identifying Republicans as partisan actors.

The seemingly obvious requirement that only citizens should be allowed to vote was treated as controversial by reporter Nick Corasaniti in “Arizona Passes Proof-of-Citizenship Law for Voting in Presidential Elections.”

Gov. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation mandating voters to verify their citizenship before they can vote for President. It quickly attracted a lawsuit from voting rights advocates who said that this could prevent thousands from casting ballots.

….

Legal experts said the new rules might run afoul of both federal law and recent Supreme Court decisions….

Corasaniti continued:

Arizona Republicans stated that the law would strengthen election security. They did not however point to evidence of substantial fraud.

He concluded by letting a surely objective Democratic state candidate spout about the “extreme” right.

“Election administrators have been fighting misinformation and disinformation for years now, and they’ve been trying desperately to keep up with the shenanigans of the extreme political right,” said Adrian Fontes, the former election administrator for Maricopa County and a Democratic candidate for secretary of state in Arizona….“They’ve been planning on this election for a year and a half now,” Mr. Fontes continued.”

The same day, reporters Reid Epstein and Patricia Mazzei joined Corasaniti’s report on an election ruling from Florida that temporarily tossed out the election overhaul signed by Times Enemy Gov. Ron DeSantis, including limiting the use of drop boxes: “Judge Rules Parts of Florida Voting Law Are Unconstitutional.” The Democratic judge Mark Walker issued a partisan anti-Republican rant which the reporters did their best to play down.

It is concise and clear 288-page order, issued by Judge Mark E. Walker of the Federal District Court in Tallahassee, was the first time a federal court had struck down major elements of the wave of voting laws enacted by Republicans since the 2020 election. Walker’s ruling found evidence of racial bias and he used an obscure legal provision to limit the way a state can legislate.

The statement was only made at paragraph 11. TimesTell us Walker was appointed in the Democratic presidential election, and gently suggest that Walker had been a liberal judge.

Judge Walker was named by President Barack Obama., spared few rhetorical flourishes in declaring that Republicans sought to limit Black Floridians’ access to voting….

Contrary to this, Times’ Nicholas Fandos let us know quickly that it was a “Republican judge” who tossed out Democratic gerrymandering in New York State. It’s not a perfect parallel, given that Judge McAllister is an elected judge and Walker in Florida an appointed one, but the contrast remains stark: The online headline deck read: “Judge Tosses N.Y. District Lines, Citing Democrats’ ‘Bias’ A Republican judge’s ruling would force New York to rethink its plans if it was upheld. It could also delay the primaries. Democrats vowed to appeal it.”

By paragraph three he’d already noted it again:

Justice McAllister is a Republican from rural Steuben County, accused Democrats of embracing tactics they have denounced Republicans for using in order to create a map that gave them an advantage in 22 of 26 New York seats….

About Post Author

Follow Us