It can be difficult to know the truth when different media outlets don’t even agree on the basic foundational facts of the story – or when they don’t even cover the same story so coverage can be compared. Establishing reliability by checking the sources does little good since the sources might not be reliable either. However, sometimes one can know when they are being lied to, and count this against the credibility of the source on other things.
On 31 May 2021, Dean Obeidallah posted to CNN.com the article The most ominous part of Texas’ voter suppression move. It makes several claims:
The article claims that the bill prohibits early voting on Sundays before 1:00 pm and that this will somehow make it harder for minorities to vote. What are minorities doing Sunday afternoon that the white majority isn’t? The article never explains. It only says that “souls to the polls” campaigns exist to get minorities to vote after church, and that having to wait (assuming that church gets out long before 1:00 – not all do) will somehow discourage them from voting at all. Does waiting until 1:00 also discourage church-going whites from voting in equal amounts? The article never explains. One could easily imagine a parallel universe in which a decision to move the time earlier would result in churchgoers claiming their votes were being suppressed because lines start forming while they are still in church. It sounds like no matter what time is chosen, somebody will claim suppression. It’s obviously not a valid claim.
The article also claims that the bill prohibits drive-through voting and that this will somehow suppress minority votes. Will minorities not vote if there is no drive-through option? Will whites vote anyways? Why? What is the difference? The article mentions that this option was used in the last election mostly by minorities, but it also mentions that the option was only used in one county. If this county is predominantly inhabited by minorities, then that alone explains the discrepancy. It is not clear where the alleged suppression is.
The article also claims that the bill lowers the burden of proof of election fraud needed for judges to “overturn the will of the people.” This is a strange way to word a sentence. If there is a claim of election fraud, it means that the “will of the people” is in dispute. How else other than going to a judge can the dispute be settled? A judge might overturn the people’s will, but a judge might also overturn the will of the fraudsters on behalf of the people. It’s not a perfect system, but neither is anything else. What’s the alternative?
Reading the article carefully, it sounds like if there is clear proof of fraud, and clear proof of enough fraud to have made a win, but not necessarily proof that the fraud did in fact make a win (very hard to prove), the integrity of the election is tainted enough that it is voided and nobody wins. It is as if no election happened. How is it suppression if everyone loses equally?
This article completely fails to make its case.