Does Donald Trump’s Legal Challenges Smell of Racism?

With apologies to Lisa Simpson, the cry of “racism” is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel. Ridiculous. But if we must play that game, yet again, Joe Biden was a long-time friend with Senator Robert Byrd, the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, and an important Democrat.

These people have highly selective racism detectors.

Yes, it does. You couldn’t figure that out for yourself, as this argument is as old as the hills. The President and his "legal team" demanded recounts in only two counties: Milwaukee and Dane counties. Both are populous Democratic strongholds with significant minority populations. However, Milwaukee and Dane counties voted for Clinton by a margin of around 3-1 in the last election, and for Biden by very similar margins in the current one. The areas where Trump lost Wisconsin were the same as the places he lost in Pennsylvania and Michigan—the suburbs around Democratic stronghold cities, and not the cities themselves.

Nevertheless, the "legal team" has picked on these big cities, claiming "irregularities" occurred despite lacking real evidence. Given that the supposed "irregularities" did not move the needle in either county in a meaningful way, one can only conclude that what Trump's lickspittles consider "irregular" is the mere existence of a vote for a Democrat, at least from a Black person or city dweller.

While the major motivation appears to be portraying cities as “hellholes” of Democrat-controlled corruption, with the "urban" and "Black" link being secondary, the real issue is that discriminating against Democrats leads to discrimination against minorities.

Putting It in Context:

Let's put this in a bit of context:

Why are we contesting election results in two counties in Wisconsin? Those two counties happen to be two of the most racially diverse counties in Wisconsin, and they voted for Joe Biden. The charge made against those counties would apply to all counties in Wisconsin, but only those two are being challenged. It "smacks of racism” for a few reasons:

1. The suit seeks to effectively deny the vote to people who have a greater than average chance to be people of color among the residents of the state.

2. The phrasing “smacks of” suggests that it has the flavor of following similar patterns as racially motivated attempts at disenfranchisement, even if it is strictly speaking not racist.

The U.S. has a long history of disenfranchisement, and these legal challenges are just the latest chapter in that story. They raise questions about voter suppression and racial discrimination in the democratic process.

Transparency and fairness in the legal process are crucial. Without a robust and transparent legal framework, the very foundation of American democracy can be shaken. Whether the challenges are legitimate or not, they have the potential to create divisions and fuel suspicion, which is a dangerous path for a democratic society.

It is important to remember that challenging election results should not be a tool for discrimination, but a means to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. The consequences of such actions cannot be ignored, especially when they target specific demographics and potentially disenfranchise whole communities.

Let us strive for a society where everyone's voice is heard and counts, regardless of race or political affiliation.