The Scoop

Supreme Court Sides With Arizona Ban On Ballot Harvesting; Out-Of-Precinct Voting

By • July 1, 2021 2:50 pm

The Supreme Court of the United States recently upheld two GOP-backed election restrictions in Arizona saying that it does not violate the Voter Acts of 1965 — a precedent that could also spell trouble for the lawsuit put forward by the Department of Justice (DoJ) this week against new voting procedures in Georgia. 

On Thursday, the country’s highest court ruled in a 6 to 3 vote that Arizona’s statute banning ballot harvesting and its policy outlawing out-of-precinct voting do not promote racial discrimination among voters.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority which included Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh while Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

In his majority opinion, Alito noted that despite “unlawful” claims against two restrictions in Arizona’s voting system — the state’s law “generally makes it easy to vote.”

“In these cases, we are called upon for the first time to apply Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to regulations that govern how ballots are collected and counted. Arizona law generally makes it easy to vote. All voters may vote by mail or in person for nearly a month before election day, but Arizona imposes two restrictions that are claimed to be unlawful,” Alito wrote.

As he went on to describe the premise of the rules in question, Alito also raised the issue on securing elections to prevent fraud.

“One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud. Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight,” Alito wrote.

“Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome. Ensuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence is also a valid and important state interest.”

 

Alito then addressed the key argument made against the Arizona’s new election practices, that they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and were therefore “racially discriminatory.”

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides vital protection against discriminatory voting rules, and no one suggests that discrimination in voting has been extirpated, or that the threat has been eliminated. But Section 2 does not deprive the States of their authority to establish non-discriminatory voting rules, and that is precisely what the dissent’s radical interpretation would mean in practice,” Alito said in the majority opinion.

The key phrase that it “does not deprive the States of their authority to establish non-discriminatory voting rules” —  is seen to play a crucial role in judicial decisions later on, particularly on the lawsuit filed by the DoJ in federal district court against Georgia, alleging that the Peach State’s new Election Integrity Act of 2021 (SB 202) violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“In In light of the principles set out above, neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot collection law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” the Supreme Court ruled.

“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 usual burdens of voting.’  On the contrary, these tasks are quintessential examples of the usual burdens of voting,” it added.

Reuters in its report wrote: “The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday endorsed two Republican-backed ballot restrictions in Arizona that a lower court found had disproportionately burdened Black, Latino, and Native American voters, handing a defeat to voting rights advocates and Democrats who had challenged the measures.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to open the door for more tighter voting measures nationwide.

The SCOTUS decision reverses the previous ruling of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which struck down both order for allegedly violating of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Justices Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts already earlier signalled being skeptical about the two Arizona statues violating Section 2 during oral arguments held last March.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, earlier defended the two Arizona statutes during the oral arguments.

Amidts all the political talks surrounding new election laws, majority of Americans in successive polls were found to be in favor of requiring voter identification, among others.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden, in a statement said the Supreme Court ruling “weakens” voting rights. 

Download ‘The Scoop TV’ video streaming app, the Conservative Alternative to Netflix!

Steeve Strange

Steeve is the CEO & Co-Founder of The Scoop.
Email
Read Steeve Strange's latest articles.