The United States Supreme Court ruled, Thursday, that two “Republican-backed ballot restrictions” in the state of Arizona do not violate the Voter Rights Act of 1965, making a critical decision that could see the Department of Justice struggle in a lawsuit going after Georgia’s election reform changes.
“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,” Reuters reported.
“The 6-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative justices in the majority, held that the restrictions on early ballot collection by third parties and where absentee ballots may be cast did not violate the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.”
Notably, the three liberal justices dissented from the decision, while the court’s six conservative and moderate judges sided with Arizona’s plan to rein in the state’s expansive early and absentee voting rules.
The ruling comes at a crucial time in history – where Democrats are pushing for changes that could tilt the elections in their favor forever, and Republicans are fightning back to ensure voter fraud does not take place as many suspect may have happened in the 2020 presidential election which somehow saw sleepy Joe Biden garner the most votes of any President in American history.
“The case involves a 2016 Arizona law that made it a crime to provide another person’s completed early ballot to election officials, with the exception of family members or caregivers. Community activists sometimes engage in ballot collection to facilitate voting and increase voter turnout. Ballot collection is legal in most states, with varying limitations,” according to Reuters.
This practice opens the door to more opportunity for voter fraud and is widely referred to as Ballot Harvesting.
“The other restriction at issue was a longstanding Arizona policy that discards ballots cast in-person at a precinct other than the one to which a voter has been assigned. In some places, voters’ precincts are not the closest one to their home.”
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority made clear that, despite these restrictions, voting remained “equally open” to all of Arizona’s eligible and registered voters. “Mere inconvenience,” he said, “cannot be enough to demonstrate” a Constitutional violation.
The case is a major win for Republicans across the country, however, as it will likely assist Georgia in defending its new election laws which Biden’s DOJ is engaging in a partisan attack on.
The DOJ is falsely claiming the lawsuit against Georgia that “recent changes to Georgia’s election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”
The laws in Georgia which the DOJ is attempting to label as racist simply mandate that a voter must be in line to vote by the official poll closing time of 7 pm, and restrict electioneering at the polls.
But, similar to the case which the Supreme Court decided on in Arizona, Georgia’s new laws do not necessarily abridge the right to vote for eligible and registered Georgia voters, meaning that the DOJ’s lawsuit may dead in the water.
Author: Marcus Dominick