Washington- The Supreme Court worked on the legality of two election rules on the battlefield in Arizona on Tuesday. One is the return of absentee ballots, the other is the return of absentee ballots, which may impose new restrictions on groundbreaking votes. Rights law.
Voting rights defenders dismantled Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, one of the remaining enforcement mechanisms of the 1965 Act, after the High Court stood on the side of the Arizona Republican Party, issuing another provision eight years ago. I’m afraid that I might.
“Some things that are really very obvious burdens are for some people, black voters, Native American voters, or Latin voters, and what you say, just by looking at them. It will really pose a challenge to the other limits that can be done. As you know, it’s a kind of inconvenience, but if you really want, they can overcome that inconvenience, “Judge Elena Kagan said. Said. “There are different limits and the different implications of those limits.”
The problem in the controversy isIn 2016, the Democratic Party of Japan filed an objection for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race. The first, known as the “inaccurate” policy, discards provisional votes cast by voters in the wrong constituency. The other is a ban on so-called “ballot harvesting,” which allows only voters’ families or caregivers to return absentee votes and imposes criminal penalties on those who violate the rules.
In the court battle, the debate spread to less than two hours, and an early test of voting rights was presented before the Supreme Court expanded its 6-3 conservative majority.
Much of the debate focused on proper testing to determine whether voting rules discriminate on the basis of race, in violation of Section 2.
Michael Carvin, a Republican lawyer in Arizona, argued that the law still provides the opportunity to vote for voters and is a way to protect them from potential fraud.
“The problem is not the result. The problem is the opportunity, whether the state has provided the same opportunity for everyone,” Carbin said. “Everyone has the perfect opportunity to vote. The state has not set any barriers.”
Judge Sonia Sotomayor needs help or carelessness in returning ballots not only to Native American voters, but also to parts of the state where car ownership is low or access to the postal system is lacking. He disagreed with the idea, stating that it could be. Appears in the wrong precincts.
“If you can’t vote for these reasons and the votes aren’t counted, you’re denied voting rights,” Sotomayor asked.
Judges John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that two policies are widespread nationwide, including states that have no history of racism in voting.
For example, a committee led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker Recommended in 2005 The so-called “ballot harvest”, in which party officials and candidates collect and return completed mail ballots, is excluded because it is vulnerable to fraud. And more than 20 states have rules regarding books that disqualify votes cast in the wrong constituencies.
“If state rules are common in other states, it’s a situation that puts a thumbs up on a scale that supports the legitimacy of state rules and doesn’t seem to reflect discriminatory intent,” Kavanaugh said. Said.
He later stated that when considering the whole situation, there must be a “just cause” for the rule in question.
Regarding the voting method, Kavanaugh said, “I have Carter Baker’s recommendation. Inaccurately, it’s commonplace in other states. At least for me, it suggests strong legitimacy. To execute the rules of. “
Gorsuch, meanwhile, questioned whether Arizona would have to wait for policies to reflect what other states had done to prevent potential fraud.
“Does Arizona have to use conventions to wait for fraud in Arizona before it can be outlawed?” He claimed on behalf of Democratic Secretary of State Kate Hobbs Jessica.・ I asked Amerson.
However, Amunson said the state had criminalized one neighbor and helped another neighbor return the ballot.
“I’m saying that criminalizing the collection of non-fraud ballots simply doesn’t benefit the state to prevent fraud,” she said.
Judge Samuel Alito expressed concern that the Hobs and Democratic positions would be “vulnerable to attacks under Section 2 of all voting rules.”
Bruce Spiva, a lawyer representing the Democratic National Committee, replied that the law challenge was dismissed if the court ruled that the racial influences were different.
“The tests used in the majority of circuits did not compromise the wide range of neutral voting restrictions,” he later said. “Rather, it has been used to carefully review discriminatory voting methods and strike as needed.”
Both rules in question in this case remained in force during the 2020 elections, as the dispute had passed court. President Biden became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win in Arizona since 1996.
A federal judge initially rejected the Democratic Party’s allegations of racism and said it could not prove that the election process “imposed”.[d] Significantly different burdens on minority voters compared to non-minority voters. ”
The panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the decision, but last year all courts reviewed the decision and overturned the inferior court.
Overshadowing the debate-and the next decision by the judge expected by the summer-is making drastic efforts in dozens of states.In the wake of the 2020 general election. According to the Brennan Center, state legislators have submitted more than 250 bills that restrict access to voting.
If the Supreme Court limits the opposition raised under Article 2, voting groups may find it more difficult to protect voters from racism and prove that a violation of the law has occurred. I’m afraid it can be more difficult.
Democrats and voting advocates have recently warned of the expansion of new rules restricting access to ballot boxes following the 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Shelby County vs. Holder. In that case, the majority of courts eradicated part of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states and counties with a history of racial voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their voting process.
However, Democrat-led House is working to revive pre-approval requirements through HR 1. This is a federal election bill that creates an automatic voter registration system, increases access to early and absentee ballots, and reduces partisan gerrymandering. However, if the House of Representatives approves, the Senate Republicans are expected to block the bill.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett asked Arizona’s GOP lawyer, Carbine, why the Republicans were involved in the case and interested in keeping the law on the books.
“It puts us at a competitive disadvantage compared to the Democratic Party,” Mr Carvin expressed concern about the votes obtained through the “illegal” interpretation. “Politics is a zero-sum game.”
Supreme Court is working on Arizona election rules in a voting dispute
Source link Supreme Court is working on Arizona election rules in a voting dispute