Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take on a major voting rights dispute Tuesday that raises crucial evidence of the court’s new conservative leanings, as states weigh in on expansive changes in electoral procedures that would restrict access to voting. .
The legal battle before judges, which centers around a couple of electoral rules in the state of Arizona, on the battlefield, is set in the context of the 2020 general election, during which Republicans and former President Donald Trump made unfounded claims of widespread electoral fraud and sought to develop policies that facilitated voting in the midst of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Now, voting rights groups are worried that a 6-3 Conservative majority ruling by the Supreme Court before the next election cycle will further weaken the voting rights law, a key part of which was dismantled by judges on 2013.
The case to be argued Tuesday dates back to 2016, when Democrats challenged two Arizona voting laws before the general election, arguing that they negatively and differently affected Hispanic, African American, and Native American voters. the state in violation of section 2 of the vote. Rights law. This provision of the civil rights era law prohibits voting practices that result in “denial or reduction” of the right to vote based on race.
The first measure, off-campus politics, discards ballots from those who vote in the wrong venue. The second rule prohibits so-called “vote collection” and allows only election officials, mail carriers, family or household members, or caregivers to return the ballot by mail from another person. Those facing the ballot collection law face two years in prison and a $ 150,000 fine.
An Arizona federal district court rejected Democrats’ claims, finding that they did not show the two “imposed” election rules.[d] significantly different charges for minority voters compared to non-minority voters. “
The verdict was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States and a divided court of three judges was upheld. But last year, the San Francisco-based court reviewed the decision and then reversed it, finding that the two election rules “have a discriminatory impact on voters in Arizona’s American, Hispanic and African American Indians.” section 2.
The 9th Circuit also ruled that Democrats successfully demonstrated that political challenges “imposed a disparate and significant burden on their citizens of American, Hispanic, and African American Indians, resulting in the” denial or reduction of the rights of their citizens. to vote by race or color “.”
Although the ninth round overturned the election rules, they remained in place for the 2020 general election.
In urging the Supreme Court to take up the dispute, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich warned that the 9th Circuit ruling threatens similar laws on other states’ books and other “sensible” election rules.
“Only this court can clarify this area of the law,” Brnovich wrote in a court case. “This court has never talked about how Section 2 applies to denial of vote claims, even though state election laws have faced a wave of litigation since then. Shelby County against holder. “
Brnovich is vying against Democrats, including Arizona Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who has encouraged the court to uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision.
“Section 2 does not provide defendants with a free release card from prison for a policy with discriminatory intent merely because they have other non-discriminatory policies,” Hobbs told the court. “The whole political process must be ‘equally open’ to voters of all races. If the government gives voters of one race more opportunities to vote than voters of other races, it is not an answer to say that the process it is open enough to disadvantaged voters. “
Voting rights activists have warned that the court could blow the Voting Rights Act if the court decides that claims filed under section 2 can only be applied to policies with intentional discrimination, rather than challenging. policies that result in discrimination.
“Even if they don’t consider Arizona’s policy to be discriminatory, they can make that determination and not take on some of those extreme arguments that are being made to hurt the remedy we have left under the Bill of Rights Act. vote, ”Sean said. Morales-Doyle, deputy director of voting and election rights at the Brennan Justice Center, told reporters last week.
The court is hearing the case, as lawmakers across the country are considering radical changes to state election laws after the 2020 election. More than 40 states have introduced more than 250 bills that would restrict access to voting, according to the Brennan Center.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, the Democratic-led U.S. House is pursuing a broad package of electoral reforms that would allow for automatic voter registration systems, expand access to early and absence voting, and curb party attrition. Republicans in the Senate are expected to reject the bill if it goes through the House.
Former Trump’s Justice Department backed Arizona Republicans in the dispute and defended election rules in a brief filed in court as enacted “to promote the orderly administration and integrity of their elections “. But in February, Deputy Attorney General Edwin Kneedler told the Supreme Court that although the department, now under President Biden, “does not agree with the conclusion of this brief that neither the measure Arizona violates the Section 2 results test, the Department does not adhere to the Section 2 enforcement framework in cases of denial of votes set forth in the report. “
The legal battle also presents a key test of voting rights for the Conservative majority in the Supreme Court, which was extended to 6-3 after the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in October.
Judges dealt a severe blow to the Voting Rights Act in 2013, when a high-court majority avoided a provision in the law that required states and counties with a history of discrimination based on the race of voters , mainly in the south, received federal approval before changing voting laws.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in this case, Shelby County against holder. paved the way for some states that were previously subject to the prerequisite of the Voting Rights Act to enact stricter voting laws, while others have drastically reduced the number of polling stations available to voters.
The high court agreed to meet the challenge to Arizona laws in early October and a decision is expected in late June.