SCOTUS upholds Arizona’s voting laws

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.

9 Responses to SCOTUS upholds Arizona’s voting laws

  1. Realist says:

    This is a fabulous ruling, insuring integrity in our elections. As we have seen here in Arizona, that is not something that has been a reliable expectation. Our November 2020 recount is still underway. I’m not a fan of Attorney General Brnovich, but he deserves kudos for bringing this case forward.

    • toughterry says:

      Credit should also go to Mark Finchem who pressed the audit forward in the fact of a recall, which BTW, failed.

  2. Seen It All says:

    Although they claim to champion minorities, democrats actually demean them by implying that they are incapable of casting ballots without assistance or incapable of locating a polling place. Minorities are as much a part of our society as anyone else. Just like anyone else there are those who are successful and those who are failures, and everything in between. Why do the dems want to portray minorities as unable to exercise their voting rights? The reason is, they benefit from the deception by employing such trickery as “ballot harvesting,” that has become a staple in minority neighborhoods. The democrat party needs to stop lying and trying to wrest control from voters.

  3. Anthem Al says:

    Constitutionally knowledgeable Americans trust that each citizen who registers to vote is entitled to one vote. “Generous” Demoncrats want to increase those numbers…but just among their own.

  4. Arizona Conservative Guy says:

    The newspaper wants total control. After its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President, subscriptions plummeted. They’ve never returned. It then declared it would no longer print pages of election endorsements, as was its decades long policy. That has become unnecessary since the entire publication is anti-Republican and increased its daily vitriolic bile spew following Donald Trump’s overwhelming presidential victory.

    • D.B. Cooper says:

      No one needs or wants a hard copy newspaper or even an online version of this biased garbage.

      Most of us watch Tucker and Mark Levin for national news as well as Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and other reliable sites. The days of an overpriced and insulting piece of trash thrown onto a driveway are over. A reputable source told me that if it were not for the senior citizens and the snowbirds who arrive each winter, the Repulsive would not be able to hang on. Makes sense to me, since no one I know subscribes.

  5. Doc says:

    SRAZ & All – I sent this to AZ Sec of State Katie Hobbs 07/01/2021:

    “Dear Secretary of State Hobbs,

    Just in case you didn’t get the memo this morning, SCOTUS handed you your backside in a red SOLO Cup. I take this as a portent of things to come…such as your candidacy for Governor of our Great RED State. I just thought I’d letcha’ know. Have a good day.

    Sincerely, David P., Constitutional Conservative, Chino Valley, AZ. (soon to be Kirkland, AZ. I just haven’t gotten my VOTER I.D. in the mail yet…)

    P.S. ~ give Geo. Soros my regards…”

    I thought you’d get a chuckle out of it.

    • Arizona Conservative Guy says:

      Good letter and the PS is priceless! Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply!

  6. Russell says:

    In spite of this ruling, Tucson has decided, unanimously no less, to ignore the state, the SCOTUS, AND our constitution and 2nd Amendment. We obviously need to start a recall for ALL of these chuckle heads!