As the U.S. Supreme Court protects ballot integrity, the reliably leftwing local newspaper intentionally mischaracterizes the ruling as “voting restrictions disproportionately affecting minority voters”
The U.S. Supreme Court (photos and professional bios) on Thursday upheld Arizona’s rational election integrity laws. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices defended states’ abilities to administer elections and pass laws to protect the results.
This is excerpted from the Arizona Attorney General’s press release:
“The Democratic National Committee (DNC) challenged Arizona’s regulation of ballot-harvesting and limitation on out-of-precinct voting in 2016. The DNC erroneously claimed the measures violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and that the ballot-harvesting law was enacted with discriminatory intent. The U.S. District Court of Arizona rejected the DNC’s challenges after a full trial, but a majority of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed those findings to invalidate Arizona’s laws.
Today, the justices strongly refuted the DNC’s claims stating, “…neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA.” SCOTUS further concluded: “Under our form of government, legislators have a duty to exercise their judgment and to represent their constituents. It is insulting to suggest that they are mere dupes or tools.
The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee has broad implications for the rest of the country. If the SCOTUS had accepted the logic of the DNC, every voter integrity law in the country would be in jeopardy if it created any disparity between minority and non-minority voters.
Approximately twenty states have some regulation of ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting occurs when third-parties or political operatives go door-to-door and collect voters’ ballots. There are exceptions in Arizona’s law for family, caregivers, mail carriers, and election officials.
Additionally, the majority of states require ballots to be cast in the correct precinct. Requiring voters to vote in their assigned precinct furthers important state interests in administering the election free from fraud and ensuring voters get a ballot with the correct local races.”
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent.