And some commentators argued that the US Supreme Court was overstepping its boundaries, since voting is a responsibility of the states, not the federal government. What do you think?

Before answering this question, watch the Spike Lee video “We Wuz Robbed” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adc6McXeY-c&t=35s). The 14th Amendment to the Constitution applies the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states. Equal protection of the law is a fundamental right applicable to all citizens of any state. The Court used this argument in the 2000 election to decide Bush v. Gore and stop the recount in Florida because, it said, the votes were counted differently in each county and therefore did not allow a single standard that would apply to all ballots. Opponents, however, argued that this was a pretext, since the recount was authorized by the Florida Supreme Court, and there was clear and compelling evidence of widespread fraud and/or incompetence. (For example, at least 1100 voters, mostly those likely to vote Democratic, were illegally removed from the list of eligible voters. That’s more than the 537 votes Bush allegedly won by.) Also, if the equal protection argument were valid, it would invalidate EVERY election, since they’re all decided at the county level. (Think about it.) And some commentators argued that the US Supreme Court was overstepping its boundaries, since voting is a responsibility of the states, not the federal government. What do you think?

Last Completed Projects