Judge throws out GOP Michigan lawmakers suit attempting to restrict voting rights.

You guys know, the party that looks out for everybody’s voting rights, the party that is trying to protect the little guys from all these evil immigrants coming into our state, The family values.  It’s just weird This very party would try to restrict voting rights for people.  

Have we asked why one party always tries to make it harder for people to vote?  

That fact, alone should wake us the hell up.  But, let’s face it Bob is dead balls, right.   America is really a stupid country, and even the people that are getting their rights restricted are probably on the side that is trying to restrict them because they have an R In front of their name.

https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2024/04/10/federal-court-rejects-lawsuit-of-11-republican-state-legislators#:~:text=LANSING%2520%E2%80%93%2520Today%252C%2520Federal%2520Judge%2520Jane,Jonathan%2520Brater%252C%2520the%2520State's%2520elections

This is another attempt to push the idea that only the elected legislature can determine how voting is done. It is based on one guy who made up what the intent of the wording in the Constitution is some 40 years after the document was written, and ignores the accounts of the debates during its writing.

Thus far only a couple of very corrupt Justices have shown any interest in that theory and the last Court ruling on it was 7-2 against it.

This is an attempt to push it to the court again.

republicans/libertarians know that when people are allowed to vote, decency and democracy wins.

Just trying to learn here but these case bringers were judged to not have actual standing to bring this case.  In a case like this, who exactly would have standing?

I don't like cases like this getting dismissed based on standing, It is important that they get bitch smacked into oblivion. rather, they say "well, you can't actually bring this lawsuit" leaving an opening for someone else to challenge when they could end the bs argument all together by ruling against the concept with prejudice.

This is my understanding - anyone with a law degree, or even a class in business law can provide a better explainaton:

As I'm sure you know, standing means the plaintiffs can show an actual "injury" due to the current situation.

It is a basic filter for lawsuits.

Before the Republicans began to use the courts to gain what they cannot do in the legislatures standing was a pretty well-established idea, where a person named, that is a single person, bringing the lawsuit had to show direct injury to themselves. That federal judge in Texas has bent that rule into a pretzel & the 5th circuit has gone along with him, however IIRC tSCOTUS recently overturned a case based on standing, putting the brakes on some of these suits.

So, in this case the people bringing the suit, the Michigan Republican Party, should have had one person that they could use as "injured" and that "injury" before the current wishy-washiness had to be direct.

I would think not being represented by their voting choice might count, under the one person one vote 14th Amendment rules, but that would depend on district size and if the Commision did its job that wouldn't work.

The Republican Party itself cannot have standing as it is not a person, and that more Democratics are now elected in fair (14th) districts is not an injury.

Federal courts would rather use technicalities, usually, rather than make rulings on more direct things, because, under the case law system, any ruling in any court becomes a precedence for further cases.

This, BTW, is why the ruling about Colorado kicking Trump off the ballot, is so controversial. All the Justices agreed that the states cannot set the standards for Federal Elections, the states do not have standing, however the 5 Justices who added additional law in their ruling went beyond what was needed to decide the case. They created new law, more restrictive law, which is questionable as to its need as the 14th is clear.