Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court is set to address a major suffrage dispute on Tuesday that sets a crucial test for the new Conservative tilt of the court, as states weigh extensive changes to election procedures that will restrict access to the vote.
The legal battle before the judges, centered around a few election rules in the battlefield state of Arizona, is against the backdrop of the 2020 general election, during which Republicans and former President Donald Trump made and sought unfounded allegations of widespread voter fraud. to derail policies that made it easier to vote amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Voting rights groups are now concerned that a ruling by the 6-3 Conservative majority of the Supreme Court before the next election cycle will further weaken the rural voting law, whose judges were dismantled in 2013.
The case that was to be argued on Tuesday dates back to 2016, when Democrats before the general election challenged two voting laws in Arizona, arguing that they adversely and unequally affected Hispanic, African-American, and Native American voters in conflict with Section 2 of the Vote. Law on Rights. That provision of the Civil Rights Age Act prohibits voting practices that result in a denial or shortening of voting rights based on race.
The first criterion, the policy outside the environment, throws the votes away from those who vote in the wrong area. The second rule prohibits the so-called ‘harvests’ and allows only election officials, postal workers, family members or households or caregivers to return another person’s ballot paper. Violators of the ballot collection law face up to two years in prison and a $ 150,000 fine.
A federal federal court in Arizona has rejected the Democrats’ allegations and found that they failed to show that the two election rules were ‘imposed'[d] burdens on minority voters significantly differ compared to non-minority voters. “
The decision was appealed to the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals, and a divided panel of three judges upheld it. Last year, the court in San Francisco reviewed the ruling and then reversed it, finding that the two election rules “have a discriminatory impact on American voters in India, Spanish and African America in Arizona,” “contrary to Article 2.
The 9th lane also ruled that the Democrats had successfully demonstrated the disputed policy, imposing a significant divergent burden on its American Indian, Hispanic and African-American citizens, which led to the denial or shortening of its citizens’ right to to vote due to race or color. . ‘”
Although the 9th lane overturned the election rules, it remained in place for the 2020 general election.
The British Attorney General of Arizona, Mark Brnovich, has appealed to the Supreme Court to address the dispute, warning that the 9th district court ruling threatens similar laws on the books in other states and other ‘meaningful’ election rules.
“Only this court can clarify this jurisdiction,” Brnovich wrote in a case before the court. ‘This court has never talked about how section 2 applies to claims for the denial of votes, although the electoral law has faced a wave of this lawsuit since Shelby County v. Container. “
Brnovich is working against the Democrats, including Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in Arizona, who urged the court to uphold the 9th Circuit ruling.
“Section 2 does not give defendants a free-from-the-prison card for one policy with discriminatory intent, simply 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 chance to vote than voters of other races, it is no answer to say the process is open enough for the less privileged voters. “
Voting rights activists have warned that the court could crack down on the Voting Rights Act if the court rules that claims filed under Section 2 can only apply to policies with intentional discrimination, rather than policies that result in discrimination. to challenge.
“Even if they do not find Arizona’s policies discriminatory, they can take the determination and not from these extreme arguments put forward to prejudice the solution we have left under the Voting Rights Act,” Sean said. Morales-Doyle, deputy director of suffrage and elections at the Brennan Center for Justice, said in a call to reporters last week.
The court is hearing the case, as lawmakers across the country are considering considering major changes to the state’s election laws after the 2020 election. According to the Brennan Center, more than 40 states have introduced more than 250 bills that would restrict access to votes.
Meanwhile, the US House, at the democratic level, at the federal level, is striving for a broad electoral reform package that will create automatic voter registration systems, expand access to early and absent votes, and limit partisan voting. Republicans from the Senate are expected to filter the bill if it passes the House.
The Department of Justice under former President Trump supported the Arizona Republicans in the dispute and defended the election rules in a court-ordered order “to promote the orderly administration and integrity of his election.” 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 in the order that no Arizona measure violates Section 2 test results, the department does not comply with the framework for the application of Article 2 in the cases of denial as set out in the mandate. “
The legal battle also provides an important test for the right to vote for the Conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which expanded to 6-3 following the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in October.
The judges slammed the Voting Rights Act in 2013, when a majority of the Supreme Court removed a provision from the law requiring states and provinces with a history of racial-based voter discrimination, primarily in the South, to receive federal approval . before changing voting laws.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in that case, Shelby County v. Holder, paved the way for some states that were previously subject to the requirement of the Voting Rights Act to introduce stricter voting laws, while others drastically reduced the number of polling stations available to voters.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge to Arizona’s laws in early October, and a ruling is expected by the end of June.