WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices asked skeptical questions Tuesday about Arizona’s electoral laws in a case that emerged as an important test of the Voting Rights Act.
The case is about whether two state laws violate Section 2 of the law: one blocks the counting of votes cast in the wrong electoral zone and another prohibits anyone other than a family member or caregiver from collecting and delivering the voter’s ballot. .
On the one hand are the state of Arizona and the Republicans, who want to keep the laws strict in the books and argue that they avoid fraud. On the other side are the Democrats, who want the laws to be eliminated and argue that the rules prevent voters, especially minorities, from accessing the polls.
Voting restrictions are being fought in a state where Republicans have dominated local and national disputes for generations, but where Democrats have recently gained strength and won seats in the U.S. Senate and in the presidential race last year. The outcome of the case may also have far-reaching implications for voting laws in other states.
Court President John Roberts and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, two Republican nominees and potentially essential votes in the case, appeared to be struggling with the arguments while asking difficult questions to lawyers on both sides.
Roberts asked the Republican Party attorney in Arizona, who is defending the laws, why it is “a bad thing” for election procedures to seek “racial proportionality”.
He later pressured the Democrats’ lawyer to define what it would take in his opinion to make a law unacceptable. “What if the provision results in a 1 percent decline in minority voter participation – is that substantial enough?” he asked.
Barrett told the Arizona state attorney that there were “some contradictions” in his argument and that his job was to show why changes in the laws preserved equal “opportunity” for white and non-white voters.
Later, however, she seemed undecided as to whether Arizona’s laws crossed the line. “There is a difficulty that legal language and its lack of clarity present in trying to find out when something goes from an inconvenience to a burden,” said Barrett.
Roberts and Barrett, plus the other two judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, are likely to be the deciding votes in the case.
A significant moment during virtual discussions came when Arizona Republican Party attorney Michael Carvin connected the validity of Republican-backed laws to the party’s interest in winning the election.
When asked by Barrett what was the interest of the state Republican Party in the case, he replied: “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage compared to the Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through illegal interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It is the difference between winning an election by 50-49 and losing an election. “
None of the three judges appointed by Trump had been on the Supreme Court for eight years when she issued a historic opinion on the Voting Rights Act, minimizing the impact of Section 5, which ensured that states with a history of discrimination were allowed to change laws on voting rights. voting. At the time, Roberts wrote decision 5-4, arguing that conditions had improved in the South and that the formula for burdening states was invalid.
Kavanaugh, echoing Barrett, said there was “obscurity” about the limits of the Voting Rights Act.
Gorsuch seemed more sympathetic to Arizona laws. At one point, he lobbied a lawyer who contested the provisions to concede that the state has an interest in preventing electoral fraud.
Judge Elena Kagan asked lawyers about three hypothetical changes to voting laws: eliminating all Sunday polls (noting that black Americans vote at much higher rates on Sunday), moving all polling places to a country club ( and away from minority neighborhoods), and changing voting hours to 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (when working-class voters are at their jobs).
“These are all hypotheticals that never existed in the real world,” said Carvin at one point, looking frustrated by the line of questioning.
Carvin argued that the universe of laws that are invalid under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is “extraordinarily limited”. He said the question is not about “results”, but whether the law imposes unequal “opportunities” for white and non-white voters, regardless of socioeconomic differences.
A contentious moment came when Judge Sonia Sotomayor pressured Carvin to explain why a government that severely restricts voting options in minority areas was not denying the right to vote.
“If you just can’t vote for those reasons and you’re not, and your vote isn’t being counted, you were denied the right to vote, right?” she asked.
“I don’t think anyone would say that a hearing was denied due process,” said Carvin.
“This is not a complaint of due process,” interrupted Sotomayor. “You are denied something if you do not have the right to vote … for circumstances that the state could easily remedy.”
