WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday is holding a court battle over voting rights in the battlefield state of Arizona, and the outcome could affect how the country’s courts resolve conflicts over election laws in dozens of other states.
The case will also be a test of one of the most important civil rights laws – the Voting Rights Act, which significantly scaled back the Supreme Court in 2013.
Two Arizona laws are at stake in the virtual oral arguments before the judges. The one requires election officials to reject ballots with the wrong territory. The other relates to voting by post and stipulates that only the voter, a family member or a caregiver can collect and deliver a completed ballot paper.
“The ban on an unlimited harvest of third parties is a sensible way to protect the secret ballot,” the state told the judges. The rule outside the neighborhood is meant to prevent multiple voting, Arizona said.
But the Democrats in Arizona said the state has a history of switching polling stations in minority neighborhoods more frequently and placing the ballot boxes in places meant to cause mistakes. Minorities move more frequently and are less likely to own homes, leading to the need to change polling stations, Democrats said.
Arizona far surpasses other states in throwing out polls outside the area, rejecting 11 times more than the second highest state. The minority voters probably need more help to get their ballots turned, the challengers said. In many states where the practice is legal, community activists offer voting to encourage voting.
A federal judge in Arizona has rejected the challenges. But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and therefore the state appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the past, the voting law required states with a history of discrimination to obtain permission from courts or the Department of Justice before changing the election procedures. The test was whether a change would allow minority voters to do worse. But in 2013, the Supreme Court suspended the requirement for clarification and ruled that Congress had not properly updated the formula to determine which states should be covered.
According to the 9th Circuit, which remains of the law, state election regulations can be blocked if it excessively affects the proportion of a racial minority to participate in the election process and candidates of their choice, and if the state has a history of discrimination against voters in that minority group. The conclusion is that the two Arizona laws did not fail the legal tests.
However, the lower courts did not agree on whether a change in voting practice violated the law.
Republicans from Arizona say the test should provide evidence that a law being challenged makes a significant difference in the opportunities for minority voters to run in the election, not just an increasing burden. The state says, for example, that the courts should consider the electoral system as a whole if they have to consider a challenge to a law that closes the ballot boxes half an hour earlier and look at other voting opportunities, such as by postal vote or early voting.
But Democrats in Arizona say the law does not require proof of a “substantial difference” and that there is no requirement to meet a minimum percentage of minority voters in order to successfully challenge a change in the voting rules. .
The U.S. Civil Liberties Union, Arizona, cited in a friendship report, will impose a categorical approach under which laws that are relatively common, or that do not make it completely impossible, are largely immune from liability. ‘
But Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and other Republicans said that interpreting the law advocated by Democrats would jeopardize any neutral voting law if it had an unequal opportunity to vote when a challenger had a minimal statistical racial difference. identify what is related to the law – and then point to completely separate, unpredictable voting discrimination from the past. ‘
The Supreme Court will rule by the summer.
