Supreme Court Upholds Restrictive Arizona Voting Laws in Test of Voting Rights Act
- Total Posts: 685
Pete Williams 18 mins ago
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two election laws in the 2020 battleground state of Arizona that challengers said make it harder for minorities to vote.
The case was an important test for what’s left of one of the nation’s most important civil rights laws, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which the Supreme Court scaled back in 2013. A remaining provision allows lawsuits claiming that voting changes would put minority voters at a disadvantage in electing candidates of their choice.
Civil rights groups were hoping the Supreme Court would use the Arizona case to strengthen their ability to challenge the dozens of post-2020 voting restrictions imposed by Republican legislatures in the wake of Donald Trump’s defeat.
The 6-3 ruling Thursday, which was split between the conservative and liberal justices, said Arizona did not violate the Voting Rights Act when it passed a law in 2016 allowing only voters, their family members or their caregivers to collect and deliver a completed ballot. The court also upheld a longstanding state policy requiring election officials to throw out ballots accidentally cast in the wrong precincts.
July 4, 2021 at 2:19 PM #433270Blue MeanyParticipant
- Total Posts: 220
should start situating all voting sites in minority neighborhoods–perhaps in African-American churches or gay bars. After all, they say the fact that someone has to go to more effort to vote is not evidence of inequality. Maybe they could situate them in the most densely populated areas, which would eliminate all the wealthier areas. And maybe they should hire the Huey Newton gun club to provide security. Perhaps they could pass legislation revoking the voting rights of anyone who cheats on their taxes and then vigorously enforce this only on the wealthy.
Perhaps we could also find a way to sanction those who are engaging in voter suppression at the state level, targeting the individuals rather than the states, so as to avoid hurting the innocent.
July 4, 2021 at 4:31 PM #433292Jim LaneParticipant
- Total Posts: 865
From the electoral-vote.com website (link though you have to scroll down):
Q: With the recent Supreme Court Ruling, could Democratic State Legislatures start passing voting restrictions to inconvenience rural areas—perhaps stating that to help with election integrity all polling places must be located in a municipality with population greater than 100,000? B.B., St. Louis, MO
A: They could, but they won’t. First, Democrats are far less comfortable with that kind of chicanery, especially since it would just encourage an anti-voting-rights arms race. Second, it really only makes sense in states where Democrats have the trifecta, but fear losing power (and EVs and seats in Congress) in the future. There are really only two states like that right now, namely Maine and Nevada. On the other hand, Republicans have many large and valuable states like that, including Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, and arguably Texas. One can see why Republicans would be rather more motivated to stack the deck.
I have in mind a different approach, based on analyzing the latest Supreme Court vote in terms of the partisan affiliation of the Presidents who appointed the current Justices. I’ll refrain from elaborating, though. I don’t want to upset people who prefer not to think about the thousands of Native Americans who have now been effectively disenfranchised.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.