How elections are run are the first question of democracy, and The New York Times routinely displays its eagerness to push the partisan Democrat point of view. On Friday, the paper tilted to the left in three different articles about election issues in Arizona, Florida, and New York.
The paper painted Democratic hacks as non-partisan while invariably identifying Republicans as partisan actors.
The seemingly obvious requirement that only citizens should be allowed to vote was treated as controversial by reporter Nick Corasaniti in “Arizona Passes Proof-of-Citizenship Law for Voting in Presidential Elections.”
Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona has signed legislation requiring voters to prove their citizenship in order to vote in a presidential election, swiftly drawing a legal challenge from voting rights activists who argued that it could keep tens of thousands of voters from casting a ballot.
Legal experts said the new rules might run afoul of both federal law and recent Supreme Court decisions….
Arizona Republicans said that the law would shore up election security, although they did not point to any evidence of significant fraud.
He concluded by letting a surely objective Democratic state candidate spout about the “extreme” right.
“Election administrators have been fighting misinformation and disinformation for years now, and they’ve been trying desperately to keep up with the shenanigans of the extreme political right,” said Adrian Fontes, the former election administrator for Maricopa County and a Democratic candidate for secretary of state in Arizona….“They’ve been planning on this election for a year and a half now,” Mr. Fontes continued.”
The same day, reporters Reid Epstein and Patricia Mazzei joined Corasaniti’s report on an election ruling from Florida that temporarily tossed out the election overhaul signed by Times enemy Gov. Ron DeSantis, including limiting the use of drop boxes: “Judge Rules Parts of Florida Voting Law Are Unconstitutional.” The Democratic judge Mark Walker issued a partisan anti-Republican rant which the reporters did their best to play down.
The sharply worded 288-page order, issued by Judge Mark E. Walker of the Federal District Court in Tallahassee, was the first time a federal court had struck down major elements of the wave of voting laws enacted by Republicans since the 2020 election. Finding a pattern of racial bias, Walker in his ruling relied on a little-used legal provision to impose unusual federal restrictions on how a state legislates.
Not until paragraph eleven did the Times tell us Walker was appointed by a Democratic president, while gently hinting the liberal judge had gone a bit overboard rhetorically.
Judge Walker, who was appointed in 2012 by President Barack Obama, spared few rhetorical flourishes in declaring that Republicans sought to limit Black Floridians’ access to voting….
In contrast, the Times’ Nicholas Fandos let us know quickly that it was a “Republican judge” who tossed out Democratic gerrymandering in New York State. It’s not a perfect parallel, given that Judge McAllister is an elected judge and Walker in Florida an appointed one, but the contrast remains stark: The online headline deck read: “Judge Tosses N.Y. District Lines, Citing Democrats’ ‘Bias’ — The ruling by a Republican judge would send New York back to the drawing board if upheld and could delay its primaries. Democrats vowed to appeal it.”
By paragraph three he’d already noted it again:
Justice McAllister, a Republican in rural Steuben County, accused Democrats of embracing tactics they have denounced Republicans for using in order to create a map that gave them an advantage in 22 of 26 New York seats….