Disparate Impact for Thee, but Not for Me?

It must have been obvious to an intelligent observer that a lack of meaningful and publicly verifiable monitoring of elections integrity has disproportionately benefited Democrat candidates.  So many times, when election processes or other circumstances facilitated fraud and cheating, it was the Democrat Party that was the foremost beneficiary of that facilitation.  The 2020 presidential election is not an exception from that pattern.

We have seen it over and over again.  Many races that Democrat candidates were decidedly losing during Election Day often ended up in their favor late at night or early next morning, when it was easier to stuff ballot boxes or to doctor the counting of the votes.  This hardly ever happened to Republican candidates.  The same tendency was observed in cases of a broken chain of custody of the ballots when it was easier to cure the original ballots, or replace them with fabricated ones, or inject fraudulent ballots from non-existing or ineligible voters, or discard the legitimate ballots, or coerce or bribe voters to vote certain way.  For instance, in such cases as absentee voting, mail-in voting, and vote-harvesting (which was legalized in California a few years ago), it was by and large the Democrat Party that was benefiting from such breaks of the chain of custody and the opportunity to cheat that they facilitated.

In many cases of cheating and fraud, the numeric results were strikingly implausible or statistically so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible.  This was particularly true when a number of statistically unlikely changes and sudden unexpected spikes in the real-time vote counts happened almost simultaneously, usually late at night or early next morning, in different locations in several so-called "battleground" states, like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona.  The probability that all these changes and spikes were natural, as opposed to engineered, taking into account the disparate impact in that they almost always benefited the candidate of the same party, was so minuscule that any competent and impartial statistician would consider them proof of organized manipulation, or at least a valid justification for a legal presumption thereof under the fraud-facilitating circumstances of the 2020 elections.

So should the courts.  They should have acknowledged that when the incontrovertible lapses in election processes' scrutiny had a disparate detrimental impact on the Republican presidential candidate, election fraud and cheating on behalf of the Democrat presidential candidate have presumably taken place.  Courts' sustained refusals to doing so equaled a judicial double standard.  In a narrow context of cases of alleged discrimination against protected minorities, a disparate impact on a minority does justify legal presumption of discrimination, yet in the case of alleged election fraud against the Republican presidential candidate, the disparate impact on the results of the election does not, according to several courts.  But if the disparate impact, which is a purely statistical argument, legally implies — according to the Supreme Court decision of 1971 — a presumption of discrimination, then it would be at least disingenuous to assert that disparate impact clearly demonstrated by known statistical arguments cannot establish a legal presumption of the election fraud when the means of enforcement of elections integrity and their scrutiny have lapsed.

Thus, the autocratic claims by several courts alleging that the Republican plaintiffs failed to prove election fraud large enough to reverse the results of the presidential election are absurd in the face of the disparate impact that statistical data clearly indicate.  Somehow, the courts never seem to consider the evidence of fraud-facilitating or fraud-indicating "irregularities" and these statistical data together.  Separating the two classes of evidence and falsely claiming that if none of these separate classes is enough to prove by itself the alleged fraud, then there is no proof of the alleged fraud is a fallacy.  It appears that in addition to a number of judges who often use their benches for political activism, there is another number of judges who at times are not able or not willing to reach logically valid conclusions from the totality of the existing evidence.

And then, adding insult to the injury, after the alleged cheaters obstructed collecting evidence of their cheating and — in some cases — destroyed it (for instance, by shredding signed envelopes of mail-in ballots before authenticity of the signatures could be independently verified), some courts dismissed Republican lawsuits without any fact-finding, ostensibly because of insufficient up-front evidence that the fraud not only took place, but swayed the results.  Such dismissals, in fact, facilitated a cover-up of the election fraud.  In those cases, the courts refused to notice that the said obstructions had an obviously disparate detrimental impact on the Republican candidate so that they could dismiss without trial the well evidenced lawsuits by the plaintiffs impacted by the obstructions.  But the courts would and should have noticed said disparate impact if they were truly impartial and capable of logical and statistical reasoning.

The current situation regarding the 2020 election fraud seems to indicate the inability of our legal system, corrupted by decades of "liberal" "enhancements" and its infestation with activist, disloyal, or incompetent judges, to deal with the election fraud.  In case of the current election cycle, the fix seemed relatively easy; it would need a decision by the Supreme Court that its disparate impact invention of 1971 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to presidential elections.  The Court had an excellent opportunity to make such a clarification while considering the State of Texas's lawsuit that contested validity of the 2020 election results in four battleground states.  Unfortunately for the country, the Court missed that chance, as it dismissed the lawsuit not on its merits, but on procedural technicalities (a lack of standing) that were questioned by two justices in their dissent.

As of now, it appears that tens of millions of Americans who are justly concerned with the widespread election fraud are the only group of consequence in America that the government, including the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, is unwilling to listen to, despite mountains of evidence of fraud-facilitating voting "irregularities" and the disparate impact these "irregularities" have on the Republican candidate.  Are we subjected to this kind of two-tier justice because we don't riot, burn, loot, attack, or intimidate?  Apparently, those who do get their way in our presumptively constitutional republic, where nobody is above the law.  This disappointing fact does not testify well about the government that is supposed to be accountable to Us the People and not to the rebellious few.

Let me quote from the Declaration of Independence here.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Mark Andrew Dwyer's recent columns are posted here and here.  Links to his other commentaries can be found here.