Supreme Court upholds restrictive Arizona voting laws in test of Voting Rights Act

[EarlG]

Source: NBC News

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.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-restrictive-arizona-voting-laws-test-voting-rights-n1272892

[Fullduplexxx]

1. 6 to 3. ...

The court also upheld a longstanding state policy requiring election officials to throw out ballots accidentally cast in the wrong precincts...... but her emails

[jimfields33]

11. Both of these are doable.

The Democratic Precinct captains ensures the voters know exactly where to vote in Their district. And that the ballots are mailed within 24-hours of getting the ballot. That ensures time to get to board of elections and slowness of the post office.

[appleannie1]

33. I have been a poll worker many times over a lot of years in PA. Anytime someone from a different

precinct mistakenly came in to vote, we gave them the choice of going to their right polling place or making out a provisional ballot. We never allowed them to simply vote where they were.

[Progressive Jones]

41. Whenever I've worked the polls in my County in IL (Kane), on the actual election day

we send people who come to the wrong polling place to their correct location. We also give them very clear directions to where they need to go. I've known of volunteers being available to transport voters to their correct polling site, if needed, in these situations. Nothing is too far away, as I live and vote in a larger town. Nobody accidentally comes here from across the County to vote.
Early voting can be done at any provided Early Voting location in the County. There are several.

Kane Co. runs a squeaky clean election. It's a Purple county that was once very Red, but also very moderate. My area is Urban/Suburban/Rural all at once. Fairly diverse, socio-politically.

[appleannie1]

42. We only have one day voting and absentee voting. With Covid, people could vote absentee if they

felt going to the polls was not safe. At 77, with heart issues, I voted absentee and not trusting the mail, drove to the county courthouse to place it in the only box in the county.

[machoneman]

2. Not such a big deal in my mind. Wrong precinct ballots do get thrown out in many states btw.

[Fullduplexxx]

4. A different court makeup could have ended it in all states

[Politicub]

7. This is a massive deal in swing states. Someone can be charged criminally

with unknowingly attempting to vote in the wrong precinct.

The law is yet another that seeks to arrest people who make honest mistakes. And the threat of investigation will have a chilling effect on people who do everything right.

This is a bad day.

[AngryOldDem]

12. See my post below.

That’s why I’m wondering how this affects provisional balloting, which is designed in part just for this reason.

[AngryOldDem]

9. In many states there is provisional balloting.

If a voter is challenged for whatever reason they may be given a provisional ballot, which is then set aside. If the challenge is upheld, the vote is tossed. If not, it’s counted. A voter may ask what the outcome of their provisional ballot was.

Does this decision take into consideration provisional voting, or does it effectively trash that, too? Sounds like it does. Bottom line — voting in the U.S. just keeps getting incrementally harder.

[Politicub]

14. Under the new law, Arizona no longer will have provisional ballots outside of the precinct.

Provisional ballots are a construction of state law. Therefore, laws about their use or availability come from the state.

Based on this ruling, Arizona’s law stands. So there will not be a way for a voter to cast a ballot in one precinct if they live in another. In fact, the attempt will be a criminal act.

[Ms. Toad]

25. The purpose of a provsional ballot is not to permit you to vote out of precinct

(most of those are not counted now).

The purpose is to permit voting while eligibility to vote is uncertain (moved in, hadn't yet changed address; ID not complian with state law, possibly purged, etd.). Once clarified, if the person is eligible to vote in that precinct the vote will be counted.

Pollworkers do everything they can to discourage voters from voting out of precinct - because the vote will generally not be counted if they vote in the wrong precinct. State laws vary - Ohio counts at least federal level votes if they are registered but voted in the wrong precinct.

[lark]

3. Surprised it took them this long, but we knew the right wingers would fuck democracy & they have.

They want (especially Alito and Thomas) a right wing fascist government, but want to pretend we're a democracy so wouldnt go so far as supporting drumpfs fake fraud claims. They will however support any effort other than that to disenfranchise the working class and proved that today.

We are still in peril from these 6 and SCOTUS must be expanded but don't know how we can do that with these right wingers in charge.

[Ford_Prefect]

5. Imagine that...! Thank you once again Justice Roberts.

[mvd]

6. We knew we'd have some awful ruling days under this Court

This ruling is a horrible affront to our democracy. Court expansion should still be a possibility.

[C_U_L8R]

8. Expand the court

Could there be a more urgent reason?

[Pachamama]

15. +100000

This is very urgent - our democracy is at stake

[lagomorph777]

17. We can't keep dancing around it. Time for an emergency expansion.

Do something special for Manchin and Sinema; get this done. Maybe some gigantic energy projects in their states?

[orangecrush]

37. +1

[kimbutgar]

10. This could affect repukes also!

Isn’t it possible they can get their ballots thrown out in wrong precincts and not be able to get their ballot harvested? The Democratic Party just has to work harder to educate its voters where to vote and turn in their ballots.

I’m trying to find a positive in this negative.

[yaesu]

13. the supreme fascist court will help their fellow fascists with the power grab. nt

[gab13by13]

16. Remember, this case was brought by Democrats,

with this court I would be very leery bringing any case before it.

[bluestarone]

18. Just comes down to ONE THING (and we KNOW THIS)

VOTE VOTE VOTE like never before!! Help where ever you can in your precinct! To add here, DONATE as much and where ever it's needed!!

[ScratchCat]

19. There is nothing wrong with these laws

I swear to God, pretending this has anything to do with minorities or voting rights is EXACTLY why the right says the left is in favor of voting fraud.

[Ms. Toad]

27. The ballot return targets elderly and disabled more,

But it is a law that unnecessarily restricts the right to vote.

In PA (I believe) they were filming at mail drops to catch people other than the voter dropping the ballot in the mail. In Arizona, that law would mean we could not take our elderly neighbor's ballot to the post office drop off.

[FBaggins]

28. That isn't really the point

The question for you is whether you find any of the OTHER republican-passed laws from the last few months to have anything wrong with them.

[oldsoftie]

40. I agree with you.

Although I could go the other way on the "wrong precinct" one, since a vote was cast by a legal voter just in the wrong place, but stopping someone from gathering up 20 votes shouldnt be treated the same as closing down precincts only in minority neighborhoods. We are told how safe mail in voting is, just MAIL the damn thing.

[DonCoquixote]

20. We knew this was coming

No accident that the states that WENT BLUE are the ones being targeted. Dem Good Ol Boys dont like the fact that their plantation walls crumbled, and that black and brown got up and voted, sop expect more like this, with a side of propaganda against voting in general. Do remember, Trump and his minions want a one party state, like the Russians they admire so much.

No justice is achieved without constant, relentless pressure, period.

And Biden, I like a lot of what you are doing, but the "moderates" who tell you to keep Bernie and Alexandria on a leash will be the death of us all. The moderates have no problem disarming us, because that means they keep the keys to the arsenal, and they can sit back and collect fees and pork without having to do anything.

[Polybius]

24. In this case though, it was passed in 2016

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.

[hadEnuf]

21. Are there any questions left as to what conservatives are really up to?

We need to start dealing with them accordingly.

[Alpeduez21]

22. Fuck you Jill Stein and protest voters. Fuck you

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

23. And the Naderites as well

[KPN]

31. OFFS.

[totodeinhere]

35. I don't think that comments like yours are helpful.

Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, or anyone else who has the constitutional qualifications has the right to run for president if they want to. If they siphon off votes from Democrats that is unfortunately how the system works.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

26. Arizona voting rights ruling a 'tragic' erosion of law, Kagan says in dissent

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denounced the court's ruling Thursday that upheld two election laws in the 2020 battleground state of Arizona that she says will make it harder for minorities to vote.

The court's ruling weakens the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is meant to "stand as a monument to America's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses," Kagan said in her dissent. "What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about 'the end of discrimination in voting.'"

The Arizona case was considered a test of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark civil rights law. One remaining provision of the law allows lawsuits claiming that voting changes would put minority voters at a disadvantage in electing candidates of their choice.

The 6-3 ruling Thursday, which split 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.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kagan-arizona-voting-rights-ruling-a-tragic-erosion-of-law/ar-AALFcTH

[totodeinhere]

36. Well yes. That's the whole idea. Make it harder for minority voters to vote so that the

Republicans can win elections. Republicans almost always win the white vote so if they can pass laws that discourage minority voting then they win.

[NullTuples]

29. Play by play:

Congress: (Passes Voting Rights Act)

Supreme Court: It's not our place to set election law & processes, that's up to the states. Only Congress can override them, it's in the Constitution.

Supreme Court: (proceeds to dismantle Voting Rights Act)

[Vinca]

30. I hope this is a giant wake-up call to all the Democrats who sat home during the 2016 election

because they believed Hillary and Trump were one in the same. Boom, boom, boom. Trump gets 3 SCOTUS seats filled and next thing you know we're headed down the path to autocracy, theocracy or whatever ocracy you want to call it. If a Republican happens to win in 2024 - a truly frightening thought - I fully expect abortion rights to be gone in short order, too. Somehow, some way, we have to overcome all the obstacles they're throwing in front of us when it comes to voting and elect super majorities of Democrats. Laws must be changed before it's too late.

[DENVERPOPS]

34. Excellent point, Vinca

The Republicans, step by step, are continuing to erode our Democracy.............

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

32. Biden 'deeply disappointed' by Supreme Court ruling on voting restrictions

President Biden on Thursday denounced a Supreme Court decision upholding GOP-backed voting restrictions in Arizona that critics argue make it more difficult to access the ballot.

Biden decried the ruling as the latest blow the court has dealt to the Voting Rights Act, and he argued the decision raises the stakes for federal action on election reform even as its path forward remains murky.

"I am deeply disappointed in today's decision by the United States Supreme Court that undercuts the Voting Rights Act, and upholds what Justice Kagan called 'a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities,'" Biden said in a statement.

"After all we have been through to deliver the promise of this Nation to all Americans, we should be fully enforcing voting rights laws, not weakening them," he added. "Yet this decision comes just over a week after Senate Republicans blocked even a debate - even consideration - of the For the People Act that would have protected the right to vote from action by Republican legislators in states across the country."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-deeply-disappointed-by-supreme-court-ruling-on-voting-restrictions/ar-AALFibQ

[orangecrush]

38. No surprise.

We are witnessing a multi front attack on the foundation of democracy, that is the right to vote.

Enlarge the SC, do anything we can do to block their road to autocracy, stop giving a fuck if it makes them angry, ffs.

The angrier we make them, the better.

[cstanleytech]

39. They should write the federal voting law so its not required for states to follow it but

only states that do can get more federal money spent in their state than they contribute in federal taxes.
That includes monies spent on things like military bases which might see the feds forced to close them and transfer their people out of state to states that follow the guidelines within the law.