of the facts and context that matters, but unfortunately most people never get to see that. from the perspective of people from the state of texas, does the governor end up winning a pr war, even if he doesn t deserve it. people never hear about the glimmer of hope or bait and switch. i know. i was doing the boring nerdy professor on you, stephanie. this is what it boils down to. it boils down to short term versus long term. in the short term, the governor and republican party have the some sort of voting restriction will be passed. in the long term, seeing how democrats gained in numbers. ten years ago, steph, they didn t even have enough democrats to matter if they all walked out. republicans had a super majority. in the last decade, slowly but surely democrats gained enough seats to stage the fight. they might lose this battle
registered to vote and a ban on ballot harvesting. how that is a voting restriction as opposed to protecting restrictions just baffles me. mike: okay. thanks, panel. see you next sunday. up next, our power player of the week, best selling author james patterson, on his publishing empire and the book he says may be his most important.
registered to vote and a ban on ballot harvesting. how that is a voting restriction as opposed to protecting restrictions just baffles me. mike: okay. thanks, panel. see you next sunday. up next, our power player of the week, best selling author james patterson, on his publishing empire and the book he says may be his most important. . . . the sleep number 360 smart bed.
these states go through the preclearance. so now that many of the states, in fact the brendan center calculating that 43 states have enacted some sort of voting restriction. these states don t have to go through a pre-clearance. so the only real way to challenge these laws is through section two and progressives were hoping that the court here would not weaken the way that groups could challenge these laws and in fact, guys, we re seeing in this 6-3 decision that in fact section two has been weakened. we re going through the final points of this decision and we ll get back to you on exactly how. but this is a defeat for people challenging these voting laws around the country, guys. we have jeffrey toobin joining us now. at a critical time. a time when multiple state legislatures are passing laws that restrict the right to vote. so if 2013, section five is weakened. no more federal oversight rights in effect for these kinds of
putting in place a particular voting restriction, and he calls the prevention of the fraud an interest. it doesn t have to be fraud. they have to say what they re doing is putting something in place to crack down on fraud. that s what the attorney general of arizona was saying right there. that s sort of this red herring that a number of republican elected officials have been talking about since the 2020 election. it doesn t change the math in congress, but it should change the urgency. you have to change the law. we re waiting on the formula from section five to figure out how to get the clearance back again. remember, you still have the intent test. go back to what attorney general garland said. he looked at georgia and said they said they were acting in a way that was intentional. that is still at issue here. the supreme court is not talked about that. the arizona case was about the result of the behavior. intent is still available. i think we re going to talk again about a di