Supreme Court Seems Ready to Sustain Arizona Voting Limits
By: Adam Liptak (MSN)
This just may leave a mark..................
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed poised on Tuesday to uphold two Arizona voting restrictions, one requiring election officials to discard ballots cast at the wrong precinct and the other making it a crime for campaign workers, community activists and most other people to collect ballots for delivery to polling places, a practice critics call "ballot harvesting."
© Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times Election workers counted ballots in Phoenix in November.
Several members of the court's conservative majority said the restrictions were sensible, commonplace and at least partly endorsed by a bipartisan consensus reflected in a 2005 report signed by former President Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, who served as secretary of state under President George Bush.
The Biden administration, too, told the justices in an unusual letter two weeks ago that the Arizona measures appeared to be lawful.
The court heard the case as disputes over voting rights have again become a flash point in American politics, with Democrats arguing that Republicans are increasingly trying to suppress the vote, thwart the will of the majority and deny equal access to minority voters and others who have been underrepresented at the polls.
The justices were harder to read on the larger issue in the case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19-1257, which was filed by the Democratic National Committee in 2016 to challenge the voting restrictions under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That part of the act took on additional prominence after the Supreme Court effectively struck down the heart of the law, its Section 5, which required prior federal approval of changes to voting procedures in parts of the country with a history of racial and other discrimination.
The Supreme Court has never considered how Section 2, which allows after-the-fact challenges to laws that result in disproportionate limitations on voting by members of minority groups, applies to voting restrictions. The provision has been used mostly in redistricting cases, where the question was whether voting maps had unlawfully diluted minority voting power. Its role in addressing the denial of the right to vote itself has been subject to much less attention.
Section 2 bars any voting procedure that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race." That happens, the provision goes on, when, "based on the totality of circumstances," racial minorities "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice."
Over two hours of arguments, the justices struggled to identify a standard that would allow courts to distinguish lawful restrictions from improper ones.
The court did not seem receptive to an extreme test proposed by Michael A. Carvin, a lawyer for the Arizona Republican Party, who said that race-neutral election regulations that impose ordinary burdens on voting are not subject at all to challenges under Section 2. Most justices appeared to accept that placing substantial burdens on minority voters could run afoul of the law.
But there was some dispute about what counted as substantial and what justifications states could offer for their restrictions. The court's more conservative members seemed inclined to require significant disparities unconnected to socioeconomic conditions and to accept the need to combat even potential election fraud as a sufficient reason to impose restrictions on voting.
In an exchange with Mr. Carvin, Justice Elena Kagan tested the limits of his argument. Asked whether much longer lines at polling places in minority neighborhoods could be challenged under the law, he said yes. He gave the same answer when asked about locating all polling places at country clubs far from minority neighborhoods.
But he said cutting back on Sunday voting, even if heavily relied on by Black voters, was lawful, as was restricting voting to business hours on Election Day.
Mark Brnovich, Arizona's attorney general, said the disparate effect on minority voters must be substantial and caused by the challenged practice rather than some other factor. Several justices suggested that the formulation was little different from the ones lawyers challenging the law had proposed.
"The longer this argument goes on," Justice Kagan said, "the less clear I am about how the parties' positions differ."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer echoed the point. "Lots of the parties on both sides are pretty close on the standard," he said.
Justices Kagan and Breyer, both members of the court's liberal wing, may have been playing defense, hoping the court's decision, expected by July, would leave Section 2 more or less unscathed.
But it was not clear that lower courts would be much helped if the Supreme Court were to adopt a vague and flexible approach.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that the court should adopt a clear standard. "All election rules," she said, "are going to make it easier for some to vote than others."
Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that both Arizona restrictions violated Section 2 because they disproportionately disadvantaged minority voters.
In 2016, Black, Latino and Native American voters were about twice as likely to cast ballots in the wrong precinct as were white voters, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority in the 7-to-4 decision. Among the reasons for this, he said, were "frequent changes in polling locations; confusing placement of polling locations; and high rates of residential mobility."
Similarly, he wrote, the ban on ballot collectors had an outsize effect on minority voters, who use ballot collection services far more than white voters because they are more likely to be poor, older, homebound or disabled; to lack reliable transportation, child care and mail service; and to need help understanding voting rules.
Judge Fletcher added that "there is no evidence of any fraud in the long history of third-party ballot collection in Arizona."
In dissent, four judges wrote that the state's restrictions applied neutrally to all voters.
Lawmakers were entitled to try to prevent potential fraud, Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain wrote. "Given its interest in addressing its valid concerns of voter fraud," he wrote, "Arizona was free to enact prophylactic measures even though no evidence of actual voter fraud was before the legislature."
The appeals court stayed its ruling, and the restrictions were in place for the election in November.
Tags
Who is online
51 visitors
More of those "consequences" we hear so much about............
Oh, gosh, let's cue up the "voter suppression" nonsense now!
More voter suppression. Republicans know that they can't win unless they lie, cheat, and steal.
Tell us Tessylo, how this amounts to voter?
The crickets are chirping loudly...
Seems like some folks need a reminder that I have a life outside of Newstalkers. I don't spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week on NT. I don't answer to you.
Let's see, what happened since I logged off of NT 15 hours ago. Had some dinner. Watched some TV. Smoked some pot. Went to bed.
Got up at 7:00 to log on at work.
Had some coffee.
Answered some work e-mails.
Did some work.
Checked in at NT to find people expecting an answer to a question from 15 hours ago.
LOL!
Get a life!
Taking things a bit personal are we?
Must be the pot...
Why? for a partisan high five?
The Biden Admin supported this, so who really cares?
It's a misdemeanor in PA to carry someone elses mail in ballot; of course in PA it's almost impossible to vote in the wrong precinct,
you would have to lie to get a provisional ballot and it would be tossed out, deservedly so.
80% of Arizona is on the permanent mail in ballot list. The only people who the new law could discriminate against are the Reservation Indians with no addresses. Some states won't mail to USPS P.O. Boxes which seems crazy.
This past year we dropped our TX mail in ballots off in person. While in line, a uniformed person announced that you cannot handle another person's ballot, even your spouse's, it violated some law. Two people got out of line, exited and deposited 2 ballots each in the mail box outside the door and left.
That is the stupidest thing I have heard yet.
How dare a couple drive up to drop off their ballots and only one of them get out of the car to drop them off.
Most Americans depend on their states to make election law as the Constitution provides. Progressives have always depended on the courts. This may not be the time to take a case like this to the Supreme Court!
We all knew that those election changes we saw in the battleground states would be the permanent goal of progressives.
So?
So, SCOTUS will rule in July ... think I'll take a nap.
Long as it's before the 2022 midterm.
They may not rule the way you want them to ... they certainly had no fear of ruling the way Trump didn't want them to. As to 2022, history can be cruel to those who rely upon it repeating itself.
From the seed:
In 2016, Black, Latino and Native American voters were about twice as likely to cast ballots in the wrong precinct as were white voters, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority in the 7-to-4 decision. Among the reasons for this, he said, were “frequent changes in polling locations; confusing placement of polling locations; and high rates of residential mobility.”
Similarly, he wrote, the ban on ballot collectors had an outsize effect on minority voters, who use ballot collection services far more than white voters because they are more likely to be poor, older, homebound or disabled; to lack reliable transportation, child care and mail service; and to need help understanding voting rules.
Judge Fletcher added that “there is no evidence of any fraud in the long history of third-party ballot collection in Arizona.”
In dissent, four judges wrote that the state’s restrictions applied neutrally to all voters.
..........................................
Judge Fletcher is a progressive judge who led the progressive 9th Circuit Court.
Ballot harvesting is FRAUD.
Nobody should take custody of the ballots of others to deliver them to a polling place or ballot box.
The burden of proof is always with those making the claim. How groups are likely to vote should not determine what states decide.
Great! So prove that:
Here you go:
"The process of ballot harvesting should be illegal for very good reason. It violates the chain of custody, exposing the ballot to potential manipulation by campaign operatives or nonprofit political groups. They could harass voters to turn in ballots, “assist†them in filling them out, and potentially “lose†ballots that don’t support the candidate the ballot harvester is paid to help.
The indication that ballot harvesting made the difference in California can be found in the vote proportions. Studies of absentee voters have consistently shown they tend to reflect the population or lean slightly to the right. But when ballot harvesting was deployed in California, we saw late ballots break heavily for Democrats . …
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that elsewhere in the state, Orange County voters on election night 2018 were calling the registrar’s office asking if it was legitimate for someone to come to their door and ask if they could take their ballot.
Who was coming to the door? According to a January 2019 Los Angeles Times story, illegal Dreamers were deeply engaged in the process — not just delivering ballots, but helping voters fill them out ."
I hate to break it to you Vic but an article from a RW source doesn't PROVE that 'ballot harvesting' is fraud. Try harder.
Oh and BTFW, a 2005 report looses veracity after over a decade of other studies that haven't found measurable voter fraud, not even when someone else drops off a ballot. States have had all that time to outlaw that practice and the vast majority allow it, even your state...
Fail.
A judge is a judge, IF conservatives expect conservative judges words to matter then so do progressive judges words matter.
Ballot harvesting can be fraudulent sure, But ballot harvesting does not mean it is fraudulent.
My post person harvests and delivers my ballot every election.
Oh dear! Actually that refers to the 2005 study performed on the subject. Don't like the source? That's too bad.
Oh and BTFW, a 2005 report looses veracity after over a decade of other studies that haven't found measurable voter fraud, not even when someone else drops off a ballot.
Ya, BTFW, I'd volunteer my time to collect ballots and turn them in. Gee, I could start with all the old age homes. I could tell the old timers to just sign 'em and I'll perform the tedious task of filling them out. I bet I could flip a few democrat districts fairly easily!
Fail.
You've done it again. As Perry Mason used to say "No more questions, your honor."
You are truly a trusting soul.
Not really, laws backup my trust. That same mail person harvests and delivers important things for me daily.
Referring to a 2005 study doesn't mean it represents it's findings with any veracity. BTFW, I noted in my comment why that's outdated. Perhaps you should review the Heritage Foundation's findings. Or maybe the fact that 3 years ago Trump's committee didn't find anything either.
Just because YOU would personally commit fraud doesn't mean that others that collect and deliver ballots would do so.
My MIL voted via third party delivery in Michigan last year. She is in an assisted living facility which is under full quarantine since May of last year. She has NEVER missed an election.
I had a friend once who used to leave his wallet in the glove compartment and the car door unlocked.
When I was a child our door was always unlocked.
Maybe because THEY have so easily done so that I might even the score and take California back!
Then you remember what it was like before the modern progressives and the drug epidemic?
Do you remember when Carnal Knowledge came out? I had an aunt who saw it with her husband. She said "I don't think the movies are for us anymore." I told her "keep voting for democrats!"
I sure do I watched my parents die from alcoholism as I debated with them which was more deadly, their alcohol or my marijana.
Unfortunately, We don't get to discuss that anymore.
Gotta love an article that says there is fraud so there for there must be...
It only talks about hypothetical what ifs...
What do modern progressives have to do with an alleged drug epidemic?
I have to laugh at them taking an article seriously that starts off with journalists are democrat operatives then goes on to only show things donald said as proof of fraud...
See Dr Timothy Leary.
Which has what to do with ANYTHING?
She was probably correct. Times change many people don't.
Personally I had a great comparison while growing up. My parents were strict conservatives, my grandmother was more progressive.
Grandma changed with the world my parents didn't,
Grandma lived happily till she was 93
my parents were miserable and died at 76
I learned to happily adapt to a changing world.
Wouldn't you have to live in CA to do that?
Or do you intend on traveling there to visit during the next election so that all of your liberal friends will entrust you with their ballots.
Well gee Vic, back in the 'good old days' if I would have talked to MY Aunt that way I would have got smacked upside the head.
Guess your family was more 'liberal' than mine.
IMO: Big pharmacy brought on the current opioid epidemic.
I'd bet you that most of the people I partied with in the day didn't know who the hell Leary is or was. They just need a scapegoat to blame.
I took my mailed ballot to my county election office the evening before Election Day and filled it out there, showed them my ID without being prompted to, and then watched them match my signature and scan my ballot, giving me a receipt for it. No way in heck was I going to trust anyone but me with my ballot. There were a couple hundred voters there doing likewise. Since the office faces an outdoor mall area, the whole process was all outdoors.
I'd like to see voting be as easy as we can make it, but some people would have us eschew so much regulation, they'd probably accept voting via chalk drawings on the sidewalk. There is nothing wrong with common sense regulations that do nothing more than bringing order and reliability to our elections.
Voting is already easy. What everyone is arguing about is convenience.
Do you think people should have to drive an hour or more to vote ?
Some use to walk and/or ride horses an hour or more to vote. They weren't cry babies, they consider it their civic duty.
Deflection.
It's also moronic.
How is that less convenient than obtaining medical care? Or commuting to work? Or gathering for the holidays?
Voting isn't difficult; it only requires registering to vote and showing up. Apparently people think voting should be more convenient than a mall crawl.
Why shouldn't it be as convenient as a mall crawl whatever the fuck that is?
The repukes are such poor sore losers and they know that they can't win unless they lie cheat and steal
The next Federal election will be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022. Planning to vote shouldn't be that difficult with that much advance notice.
Except Republicans were more successful in the 2020 election than were Democrats across the ballot. Democrats are the sore losers. And Democrats apparently fear they are going to be losers in the 2022 election.
NYET!
Those 'plans' can't be made until all of the new rules are passed and litigated. Got a date for that Nerm?
Yes, I do. Tuesday, November 8, 2022.
If voting is that important then don't wait until Nov. 7, 2022, to make plans for voting.
Planning to vote is orders of magnitude less complicated than planning for retirement or using Obamacare insurance. Planning to vote isn't nearly as difficult as registering to attend a college. Planning to vote is less difficult than planning a spring break in Cancun or flying to Paris for bad coffee.
Voting is one of the least difficult things the public can do. Voting is about as difficult as using a library card.
No. That was the 2020 election.
Not too difficult but certainly not convenient. The arguments over voting are really about convenience.
Look, none of this is difficult. The problem is when voting is not presided over by an election official.
Mobile polls, like a vote-mobile, could be used to provide greater access to the less mobile population and remote communities. Government election officials could go door-to-door like Census workers. Whatever method is chosen, the key requirement is that voting be presided over by an election official.
Political parties and activist groups should never be involved in collecting votes. That only gives political parties and activists an incentive to cheat.
They road to convenient EARLY voting Nerm.
What are those regulations that we are eschewing?
Which (like guns laws) we already have on the books...
I guess if the Republicans continue working new ways to suppress voting, it will eventually be just like a country with only one name on the ballot - that's beginning to sound a llittle familiar to me.
Ridiculous fluff.
The GOP has all but said through their policies, "We know we cannot win without gerrymandering and voter suppression".
Exactly, unless they lie cheat and steal, THEY CAN'T WIN.
Perhaps to those with a less-than-firm grip on reality.
BTW--one thing about gerrymandering:
You know what needs to happen before you can gerrymander?
You actually have to win elections!
You may be right.
I noticed that many Democrats didn't quite want it to end for decades when Democrats got to do it.
Now, many of the same fine folks are complaining about the very thing Democrats did for decades.
Go figure, huh?
Yes, I read and understood your post.
Even agreed that you may be right!
Unfortunately, partisan interests come from Congress.
Although requiring the election of Representatives by districts, Congress has left it to the states to draw district boundaries. This has occasioned a number of disputes. In Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, ( STATE OF OHIO ON RELATION OF DAVID DAVIS, Plff. in Err., v. CHARLES Q. HILDEBRANT, Secretary of State of Ohio, State Supervisor and Inspector of Elections, and State Supervisor of Elections, et al.) a requirement that a redistricting law be submitted to a popular referendum was challenged and sustained. After the reapportionment made pursuant to the 1930 census, deadlocks between the Governor and legislature in several states produced a series of cases in which the right of the Governor to veto a reapportionment bill was questioned. Contrasting this function with other duties committed to state legislatures by the Constitution, the Court decided that it was legislative in character and subject to gubernatorial veto to the same extent as ordinary legislation under the terms of the state constitution. ( Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) ; Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375 (1932) ; Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380 (1932) .)
Definitely sucks for people who live out on the Rez. Gonna be a real pain in the ass for them if this stands.
Already is. There are a couple states who refuse to place voting locations anywhere near a rez. Conversely, the Tribal/Nation members do not get to vote as they have no means of transportation to take them 162 miles to the poll location.
Morning 1st. Sounds like the government needs to start building some air strips over there.
Here they run air services to remote communities with health, post, provisions etc up to two times a week. Especially when the wet season arrives and they can be cut off for months.
The air strips are nothing flash some are just dirt roads bulldozed flat or a flat piece of land in a paddock on a station...but they are a life line to our Koori communities and anyone else that needs them.
The Navajo rez is roughly 27,000 square miles the size of West Virginia. It has 11 post offices and 16 mail providers and WV has 725 POs and providers...There is NO public transportation on the Navajo rez.
This is not unusual, my rez is 1300 square miles with one PO. and no public transportation.
If this stands it will be a lot more than a pain in the ass for us.
The US has a very long history of suppressing the native vote.
I wish I could answer that question r.t..b..., sadly I can't.
Morning Kavika. Pardon my ignorance but on the reservations do they have access to like we have the royal flying doctors for remote communities?? They can more or less land anywhere in the outback roads, cattle stations etc to collect ill people no matter who they are.
They also do the same when it comes to voting and at times kids schooling as well..
I am just interested...if one country can do it, surely another can...and especially when it works very well...
What right do the people whose ancestors have populated America for thousands of years have to vote in American elections? s/
I'm sure the Trumpian SCOTUS will make sure it will be as hard for them to vote as possible.
American Indians are covered by Indian Health Services, (IHS) by treaty. The problem with that is that there aren't nearly enough hospitals throughout the US to serve American Indians. Many tribes have their own clinic or small hospitals. Although the IHS is covered by treaty it has been underfunded by the government for decades.
The federal system consists of 26 hospitals, 59 health centers, and 32 health stations. This is to cover 6.5 million natives in a country the size of the US. Two health centers and one hospital have been closed in the last few months.
That is not done here, shona.
The closest IHS hospital to me is 475 miles away.
So if you get really sick on a reservation and the local clinic or hospital can't handle it, what do they do?
Here if you live in the middle of the outback say in WA you get crook, the RFDS come pick you up and you are flown to a majour hospital in Perth.
Certainly sounds like a very different system and not very good. Closing hospitals and clinics is just plain crazy when so many rely on it...
In some cases your SOL, (shit outta luck) but mostly we will go to a private hospital as some native pay for their own outside insurance. That is what I do and I don't use the IHS for a couple of reasons. First off is that I can afford to pay for my medical insurance and I don't want to take a spot from a native that really needs it and cannot afford to purchase their own.
It is a crazy system and closing facilities when they are needed is a disaster for our people.