Washington – The United States Supreme Court is ready to take on a major dispute over voting rights on Tuesday that represents a crucial test of the court’s new conservative inclination, as states evaluate expansive changes in electoral procedures that would restrict access to voting.
The legal battle before the judges, which revolves around a pair of electoral rules on the Arizona state battlefield, is set against the backdrop of the 2020 general election, during which Republicans and former President Donald Trump held unfounded allegations of widespread electoral fraud and sought to undo the policies that made it easier to vote in the midst of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Voting rights groups now fear that a decision by the conservative 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court ahead of the next election cycle will further weaken the historic Voting Rights Act, an important part of which was dismantled by judges in 2013.
The case that will be discussed on Tuesday dates back to 2016, when Democrats challenged two Arizona voting laws before the general election, arguing that they adversely and unequally affected Hispanic, African-American and Native American voters in the state, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This provision of the civil rights era law prohibits voting practices that result in “the denial or reduction” of voting rights based on race.
The first measure, politics outside the electoral zone, discards the ballots of those who voted in the wrong zone. The second rule prohibits so-called “vote collection” and allows only election officials, postmen, family members or family members or caregivers to return someone else’s ballot. Those who break the polling law can face up to two years in prison and a $ 150,000 fine.
A federal district court in Arizona dismissed the Democrats’ claims, concluding that they failed to show that the two electoral rules “impose[d] significantly different burdens for minority voters compared to non-minority voters. “
The decision was appealed to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a split panel of three judges said. But last year, the San Francisco court reviewed the decision and then reversed it, concluding that the two electoral rules “have a discriminatory impact on Indian, Hispanic and African American voters in Arizona”, in violation of Section 2.
The 9th Circuit also determined that Democrats have successfully demonstrated that the challenged policies “have imposed a significant disparate burden on their Native American, Hispanic and African American citizens, resulting in” the denial or reduction of their citizens’ right to vote on the basis of race. or color. ‘”
Although the 9th Circuit overturned electoral rules, they remained in effect for the 2020 general elections.
In urging the Supreme Court to accept the dispute, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, warned that the 9th Circuit ruling threatens similar laws in books in other states and other “sensible” electoral rules.
“Only this court can clarify this area of the law,” wrote Brnovich in a lawsuit to the court. “This court has never talked about how Section 2 applies to denial of vote claims, although state electoral laws have faced a wave of that dispute since then. Shelby County x Holder. “
Brnovich is facing Democrats, including Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who encouraged the court to confirm the 9th Circuit decision.
“Section 2 does not give defendants a freedom card to get out of prison for a policy with a discriminatory intent just because they have other non-discriminatory policies,” Hobbs told the court. “The entire political process must be ‘equally open’ to voters of all races. If the government gives voters of one race more opportunity to vote than voters of other races, it is not an answer to say that the process is open enough for disadvantaged voters. “
Voting rights activists have warned that the court could deal a blow to the Voting Rights Act if the court decides that complaints brought 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 find Arizona policy discriminatory, they can make that decision and not adopt some of those extreme arguments being made to undermine the remedy we left under the Voting Rights Act,” Sean Morales-Doyle, vice director for voting rights and elections at the Brennan Center for Justice, he told reporters in a conference call last week.
The court is hearing the case while lawmakers across the country are considering radical changes to state electoral laws after the 2020 elections. 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 House of Representatives, led by Democrats, seeks a comprehensive electoral reform package that would create automatic voter registration systems, expand access to early and absent voting, and restrict party gerrymandering. Senate Republicans must block the bill if it passes the House.
Former President Trump’s Justice Department supported Arizona Republicans in the dispute and defended the rules of the election in a petition filed with the court as promulgated “to promote the orderly administration and the integrity of his elections”. But in February, Deputy Attorney General Edwin Kneedler told the Supreme Court that, although the department, now under President Biden, “does not disagree with the conclusion of that document that none of Arizona’s measures violates the Section’s results test. 2, the Department does not adhere to the application structure of Section 2 in cases of refusal to vote provided for in the brief. “
The legal battle also presents a key test of voting rights for the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which expanded to 6-3 after the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in October.
Judges dealt a blow to the Voting Rights Act in 2013, when the majority of the Supreme Court destroyed a provision of the law that required states and counties with a history of race-based voter discrimination, especially in the South, to receive federal approval before to change voting laws.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case, Shelby County v. Holder, it paved the way for some states that were previously subject to the pre-authorization requirement of the Voting Rights Act to enact stricter electoral laws, while others have drastically reduced the number of polling places available to voters.
The high court agreed to hear the challenge to Arizona’s laws in early October, and a decision is expected in late June.