Speaking at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia this week, President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed his "the-sky-is-falling" warnings about racist attacks on voting rights weren't hyperbole.
That's precisely the "protest too much" sort of thing one says when trying to serve hyperbolic hogwash to the American public with a straight face.
During his campaign, Biden distanced himself from the far-left-leaning Democratic platform, which only mentioned Jim Crow twice, in past tense. Biden shamefully and dishonestly resurrected the moniker on Tuesday, declaring that "the 21st century Jim Crow assault is real."
Younger readers may not fully understand what Jim Crow laws were, since they were first enacted back in the 1870s, but it's difficult to wholly assess the falsity of Biden's claim without a little background.
Jim Crow laws (which were passed by Democrats, it should be noted, given the unforgiving nature of cancel-culture mania regarding past sins) overtly mandated segregation in public facilities and deliberately disenfranchised Blacks.
That meant segregation wasn't just social practice; it carried the force of law. It was illegal for a Black person to use a white water fountain, restroom or restaurant. By law, Blacks couldn't attend white schools, or ride with whites on buses or trains.
There was nothing indirect or ambiguous about Jim Crow discrimination. It specifically and explicitly named and excluded Blacks under the false proposition that the races should be separate, but could still be equal. It openly targeted Black voters.
There is not a single law in any state today that does such a thing, and it's a "big lie" to say otherwise.
While Biden warned about voter "suppression" a half-dozen times in his speech, it's telling that he didn't mention the word "fraud" once.
Voter integrity measures are no different from others that routinely validate identity for airline flying, prescription medicines or banking. But photo-ID security requirements in those cases aren't considered passenger, patient or borrower suppression.
Even more crucially, he never said the key word "opportunity." Voting Rights Act protections, as the U.S Supreme Court reminded everyone two weeks ago, hinge on the process being "equally open" to minority and non-minority groups alike.
Equal opportunity is the American way, though it rarely leads to equal participation in any instance, voting included. If all have equal opportunity, then outcomes are unequal based on individual behaviors, decisions and actions.
We the people include some who are irresponsible, negligent or apathetic about voting. That is not a threat to democratic government--it is the very essence of democratic government. Some citizens are always abusing or aborting their self-governing rights, privileges and responsibilities.
We the people also include some who are criminals, whose freedom enables them to break laws and hurt others. Yet the government cannot deprive people who might commit crimes of liberty; it can only punish criminals after they are duly convicted of lawbreaking.
In its Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee ruling, the Supreme Court also brought an appalling example of statistical manipulation to light.
The Ninth Circuit had concluded that "minority voters in Arizona cast [out-of-precinct] ballots at twice the rate of white voters." On its face, the average observer might think that means that for every white voter who cast a vote in the wrong precinct, which Arizona doesn't count, there were two minority voters who did so.
But the reality is that 99 percent of Hispanic voters, 99 percent of Black voters and 99.5 percent of white voters all cast their ballots in the right precinct in the 2016 election. The "twice the rate" claim distorts the truth by dividing tiny percentage differences (1 ÷ 0.5 = 2) and masks the fact that the populations were effectively identical.
The Supreme Court also chided the Ninth Circuit for improperly applying a "cat's paw" theory to legislators in determining that Arizona's law had a discriminatory purpose, which would be a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
A cat's paw is a dupe who is "used by another to accomplish his purposes," and in legal precepts rests on the agency relationship between employers and supervisors.
"But the legislators who vote to adopt a bill are not the agents of the bill's sponsor or proponents," the Supreme Court ruled, noting that legislators have a duty to represent their constituents. "It is insulting to suggest that they are mere dupes or tools."
This is the kind of chicanery at work behind Biden's hollow Jim Crow claims. Most people of all races and colors are not burdened in the least by strengthening common-sense requirements that exist to ensure voter integrity.
Arizona's requirements that people vote in the right precinct, and that only postal employees, election officials or family or caregivers can collect early ballots, have nothing remotely to do with Jim Crow-type discrimination and everything to do with making sure that voter fraud--once rampant in our history--is stamped out.
If voting is the "most fundamental" right to protect to ensure liberty, as Biden said, then its subversion by fraud warrants a "one is too many" attitude. He already likes that catchphrase; he used it in his awareness campaign for sexual violence against women.
Dana D. Kelley is a freelance writer from Jonesboro.