The ruling will restrict the power of minorities to problem state legal guidelines sooner or later that they are saying are discriminatory below the Voting Rights Act.
The vote within the case is 6-3 breaking alongside conservative-liberal ideological traces. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the bulk opinion.
The court docket upheld two provisions of the Arizona legislation. The first provision says in-person ballots solid on the improper precinct on Election Day should be wholly discarded. Another provision restricts a apply often known as “ballot collection,” and says solely household caregivers, mail carriers and election officers can ship one other particular person’s accomplished poll to a polling place.
“In light of the principles set out above, neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA,” Alito wrote. “Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule enforces the requirement that voters who choose to vote in person on election day must do so in their assigned precincts. Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the “common burdens of voting.'”
The case comes as several Republican-led states, encouraged by former President Donald Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud, are considering more restrictive laws and Democrats are fighting a frantic battle in courts to combat what President Joe Biden has called an “assault on democracy.”
“In narrowing the Voting Rights Act and hanging down California’s donor disclosure guidelines, the Court is handing two main authorized and political victories to Republicans — selections that doubtless wouldn’t have been attainable as lately as three years in the past. One has to imagine that it’s a distinct and plain harbinger of issues to return,” Vladeck stated Thursday.
Table of Contents
History of Arizona lawsuit
While the Democratic National Committee urged the justices to affirm the ruling, Arizona’s attorney general, the state Republican Party and the former Trump Justice Department told the court to reverse a lower court, uphold the provisions and establish legal a standard that could make it more difficult to bring claims under the Voting Rights Act in the future.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, advised the justices that the voting guidelines characterize “applicable election integrity measures that don’t create any disparate affect on racial minorities, however serve us all equally effectively.”
“Arizona endorses with out qualification the Voting Rights Act purpose of ending racial discrimination in voting,” he told the justices, and added that claims demonstrating that the law disparately impacts minovery voters can go forward. Absent such a showing, he said, “Section 2 would exceed Congress’s powers to implement the Reconstruction amendments, improperly inject race into all voting legal guidelines, and impede a state’s potential to run their elections.”
Michael Carvin, a lawyer for the state GOP, took a harder line. He asked the justices to hold that no challenges that concern neutral “time, method, or place” restrictions could be brought under Section 2. That could help greenlight many of the laws that are currently being passed in states like Texas and Georgia.
Texas, for instance, is pushing for a ban on after-hours voting, and a mandate to limit Sunday early voting as well as requiring voters requesting absentee ballots to provide their driver’s license number or Social Security number.
For its part, the Biden administration filed a letter with the court agreeing that the two Arizona provisions did not violate the Voting Rights Act, but disagreed with the suggestion to limit future claims under the law.
In court, Bruce Spiva, a lawyer for the DNC, reminded the justices that “voting discrimination nonetheless exists, nobody doubts this.” He said that minorities were twice as likely to be impacted by the out-ofprecinct law in part due to confusing placement of polling places and that the ballot collection law impacted Native Americans and Hispanic who depended upon it to cast absentee ballots.
“More voting restrictions have been enacted over the past decade than at any level because the finish of Jim Crow,” Spiva said, adding that “the final three months have seen a fair larger uptick in proposed voting restrictions, many aimed squarely on the minority teams whose participation Congress meant to guard.”
Reliance on Section 2
Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain the permission of the federal government or the courts — known as “pre-clearance” — before enacting new laws related to voting.
The justices struck down the provision of the law that determined which states would be covered, leaving it to Congress to update the formula. Congress has yet to act. Since then, challengers to voting rules had turned to Section 2 of the law that bars laws that result in discrimination. That section only allows lawsuits after the restriction has gone into effect.
The court’s Arizona decision is considered crucial to the ongoing battles over voting rights because Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is one of the few legal tools remaining to counteract laws viewed as disenfranchising Black and other minority voters.
The US Justice Department is relying on Section 2 to sue the state of Georgia over the raft of voting restrictions the GOP-controlled legislature enacted this year. Those new provisions, which include discarding most out-of-precinct votes and restricting ballot box locations, were passed with the intent “to disclaim or abridge the suitable of Black Georgians to vote on account of race or coloration,” the DOJ alleged.
Other groups suing to stop restrictive laws from taking effect in Georgia and other states also have centered their complaints, at least on part, on Section 2’s anti-discrimination provisions.
Democrats and voting rights advocates say the laws aim to discourage voting, particularly by minorities, college students and people with disabilities.
In all, 17 states have enacted 28 new laws restricting voting as of June 21, according to the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.
More limits could be on the way.
In July, Republicans in the Texas legislature head into a special session where they are likely to revive some of the nation’s most restrictive voting limits. The proposals in Texas could impose limits on absentee voting, grant new powers to partisan poll watches and take aim at new voting methods — such as drive-through and 24-hour voting — deployed in populous Harris County, home to Houston, last year.
This story has been up to date.
Latest Travel News