Brooks: Impact of Voting Changes ‘Is Pretty Minimal’ – SCOTUS AZ Ruling Isn’t ‘Catastrophic’

On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that while the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Arizona’s voting rules was a mistaken ruling, “it’s probably not a catastrophic one” because “the research suggests the impact of all these kinds of voting changes is pretty minimal.”

Brooks said, “The first is, it’s always worth reminding this is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist. There is no voting fraud — or no major voting fraud. All these state rules, we don’t need them. They’re just in service to the Trump lie that the election was stolen. Second, the intent, I have every reason to believe the intent of the legislatures in all these places was to help their party, the — basically, a white Republican Party, and, therefore, they’re trying to make it harder for people in the other party to vote. I imagine that’s their intent.”

He continued, “The impact is the crucial thing here. Is there a disparate impact? And I only look at this from looking at the research. I don’t look at it legally. But the research suggests the impact of all these kinds of voting changes is pretty minimal. … So, it doesn’t strike me as catastrophic. But the final thing to be said is, even though the impact is incremental, it’s disparate. African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, they are more likely to be hurt. Even though the effects aren’t big, they’re not equally shared across all groups. So, on the whole, I think the court made a mistake, but it’s probably not a catastrophic one.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett