The Supreme Court upholds Arizona’s restrictive voting law in testing voting rights law

Washington- Supreme Court On Thursday, he upheld two election laws in Arizona’s 2020 battlefield states, where challengers said it would make it difficult for minorities to vote.

TheĀ· The incident was an important test The Supreme Court reduced the remaining voting rights law of 1965, one of the most important civil rights laws in the country, in 2013. In the rest of the clause, minority voters make their choice due to voting changes.

The vote was 6 to 3, and the three liberals in the court opposed it.

Election law experts said the court ruling would make it difficult for minority groups to challenge voting law.

“This will significantly dilute the voting rights law,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine. “Minority groups need to meet much higher standards than show that changes impose a burden on voting. It puts a thumbs up on the size of the state.”

Judge Samuel Alito expressed a majority in favor, saying the law requires “equal openness” in the voting process. “Simply inconvenience is not enough to prove a violation of the law,” he wrote.

Changes in voting methods can have different impacts on minority and non-minority groups, Arito said. Voting. “

Judge Elena Kagan challenged herself and Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, saying the decision undermines the Voting Rights Act.

Civil rights groups wanted the Supreme Court to use Arizona proceedings to strengthen its ability to challenge dozens of people. Voting restrictions after 2020 It was imposed by the Republican Parliament in the wake of Donald Trump’s defeat.

Thursday’s ruling said it did not violate the Voting Rights Act when Arizona passed a law in 2016 that allowed only voters, their families, or their caregivers to collect and deliver completed ballots. Said. The court also upheld a long-standing state policy requiring election officials to throw away ballots that were accidentally thrown into the wrong constituency.

State lawyers said they wanted to ban “unlimited third-party ballot harvesting,” a common-sense way to protect secret ballots. They said the inaccurate rules were aimed at preventing fraudulent multiple votes.

However, Arizona Democrats said the state has a history of frequently switching polling stations near minorities and placing polling stations in locations intended to make mistakes. And the Democratic Party said minority voters are likely to need help in submitting ballots. In many states where ballot collection is legal, community activists are offering it to encourage voting, they said.

A federal judge in Arizona has dismissed the appeal. However, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the past, the Voting Rights Act required states with a history of discrimination to obtain permission from courts or the Department of Justice before changing election procedures. The test is whether the change will exacerbate the minority voters. However, in 2013 the Supreme Court suspended its pre-permit requirements and ruled that Congress did not properly update its formula to determine which states to cover.

Prior to 2013, the state was responsible for demonstrating that the change did not illegally affect minority voting. After the court’s ruling, the burden was transferred to the challenger to show that the Election Change Act would harm minority voters. However, federal courts in the country disagree on how to determine if the revised voting practices violate the law.

Posted on