The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Arizona’s voting restrictions in a decision that could make it difficult to challenge other voting measures taken by Republican lawmakers after last year’s elections.
The court voted 6 to 3, and it’s not racially discriminatory that Arizona restricted the number of people who could return early ballots to others and refused to count ballots thrown in the wrong constituency. I overturned the lower court’s decision that it was not.
The Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the measure violated the groundbreaking voting rights law and disproportionately affected black, Hispanic, and Native American voters.
Judge Samuel Alito wrote that, for a conservative majority, state interest in election integrity justified the action.
The court dismissed the idea that showing that state law affects a minority of voters disproportionately is sufficient to prove a breach of law.
In disagreement, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the court has weakened the groundbreaking voting law for the first time in eight years.
“The tragic thing here is that the court stood as a monument to America’s greatness (to weaken) and rewrote the law to protect it from its basic impulses. The tragic thing is that the court damaged the law. It is designed to bring about the “end of discrimination in voting.” I disagree in honor, “Kagan wrote, adding two other liberal judges.
Native Americans, who have to travel long distances to mail ballots, are more likely to be affected by the ballot collection law. The Court of Appeals found that votes cast by black and Hispanic voters were likely to be abandoned because they were cast in the wrong constituency.
However, Arito said the measure was a “modest burden” that did not violate the law at best.
The challenged Arizona provisions remained in force in 2020, as the proceedings are still in court.
President Joe Biden won slightly in Arizona last year, and since 2018 the state has elected two Democratic senators. Maricopa, Arizona’s most populous county, was in the midst of a Republican-led audit of last year’s ballot.
The ruling comes eight years after the High Court removes what was the Department’s most effective tool for combating discriminatory voting law. This is another provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires the federal government or courts to clear a voting change before making any changes. Impact in Arizona and other states, mainly in the South, with a history of discrimination.
Many of the measures enacted since then would never have been allowed to take effect if the pre-approval provisions of the Voting Rights Act remained in force.
Article 2 of the law, which prohibits rules that make it difficult for minorities to exercise their right to vote, remains. At the heart of Arizona’s proceedings was the standard for proving a violation of the law.
“We didn’t publish a test on Thursday to manage all claims, including the rules in question here, which specify when, where, and how to throw ballots,” Arito said. I warned.
Many Republicans continue to question the outcome of the election, despite the lack of evidence. Republican elected civil servants responded by enacting early voting and mail ballot restrictions and stricter voter identification legislation.
Proceedings against the laws enacted in Florida and Georgia, including the Justice Department’s proceedings in Georgia last week, allege violations of voting rights law.
Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias has vowed that the court battle against the new law will continue despite Thursday’s decision. “If anyone thinks this decision will thwart our voting dispute, they’re wrong. They’ll fight harder with all the tools available to protect voters from oppressive legislation,” he said.
Cagan pointed out some new legislation in his dissenting opinion. “These laws reduce the time that votes are held both on and before election days. They impose new prerequisites on voting by mail and allow them to apply for and return ballots by mail. Shorten the time period. They make it harder to register to vote and make it easier to get voters out of the roll. Two laws give food and water to the voters in line. It’s even forbidden to give out, “she wrote.
Supreme Court Supports Arizona Voting Restrictions – NBC4 Washington
Source link Supreme Court Supports Arizona Voting Restrictions – NBC4 Washington