Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to address a major voting rights dispute on Tuesday that poses a critical test of the court’s new conservative stance as states consider extensive changes to electoral procedures that would limit access to votes.
The legal battle for the judges, which revolves around a few electoral rules in the battlefield state of Arizona, is set against the backdrop of the 2020 general election, in which Republicans and former President Donald Trump made and sought groundless allegations of widespread voter fraud. to settle policies that made it easier to vote during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Now voting rights groups are concerned that a ruling by the conservative 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court ahead of the next election cycle will further weaken the historic voting rights law, a significant portion of which was dismantled by judges in 2013.
The case to be contested Tuesday dates back to 2016, when Democrats are contesting two Arizona voting laws ahead of the general election, arguing that they negatively and unequally affected Hispanic, African American and Native American voters in the state. , contrary to Section 2 of the vote. Rights Act. That provision of the Civil Rights Age Act prohibits voting practices that result in “denial or curtailment” of voting rights based on race.
The first measure, the out-of-district policy, discards ballots from those who vote in the wrong district. The second rule prohibits so-called “ballot picking” and allows only election officials, postal workers, family members or domestic servants, or carers to return someone else’s post-in ballot. Those who violate the vote collection law can face up to two years in prison and a fine of $ 150,000.
A federal district court in Arizona dismissed the Democrats’ claims, finding that they could not prove that the two “ imposed ” election rules[d] meaningfully disparate burdens for minority voters compared to non-minority voters. “
The ruling was appealed to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, and a divided panel of three judges upheld it. But last year, the San Francisco court reviewed and then reversed the decision, finding that the two electoral rules “have a discriminatory impact on American Indian, Hispanic and African American voters in Arizona,” in violation of Section 2 .
The 9th Circuit also ruled that the Democrats successfully demonstrated that the disputed policy “ imposed a significant disparate burden on its American, Hispanic and African American citizens, resulting in the ” denial or curtailment of its citizens’ right to vote because of race or skin color. . ”
Although the 9th Circuit is repealing election rules, they remained in effect for the 2020 general election.
In urging the Supreme Court to address the dispute, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican in Arizona, warned that the 9th Circuit ruling threatens similar laws on the books in other states and other “sensible” “election rules.
“Only this court can clarify this area of the law,” Brnovich wrote in an application to the court. This court has never discussed how Section 2 applies to voting refusal claims, although the state’s electoral laws have seen a wave of these lawsuits since Shelby County v Holder
Brnovich is up against Democrats, including Arizona Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who has encouraged the court to uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision.
“Section 2 does not give defendants a card without jail time for a policy of discriminatory intent just because they have a different non-discriminatory policy,” 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 the underprivileged voters. “
Voting rights activists have warned that the court could deal a blow to the Voting Rights Act if the court finds that claims under Section 2 can only apply to policies involving willful discrimination, rather than challenging policies that lead to discrimination.
“Even if they don’t find Arizona’s policy discriminatory, they can take that determination and not go into some of these extreme arguments put forth to harm the remedy we left under the Voting Rights Act,” Sean Morales -Doyle, deputy director for voting and election at the Brennan Center for Justice, told reporters on a call last week.
The court is hearing the case as lawmakers across the country are considering sweeping changes to state election laws after the 2020 election. According to the Brennan Center, more than 40 states have introduced more than 250 bills that would limit voting rights.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, the Democratic-led US House is pursuing a broad package of election reform measures that would create automatic voter registration systems, expand access to early and absentee voting, and curb partisan gerrymandering. Senate Republicans are expected to table the bill if it passes by the House of Representatives.
The Justice Department under former President Trump backed the Arizona Republicans in the dispute and defended the electoral rules in a brief letter submitted to the court “promoting orderly governance and the integrity of the election.” But in February, Deputy Attorney General Edwin Kneedler told the Supreme Court that although the division, now under President Biden, “ does not disagree with the conclusion in that letter that neither of Arizona’s measures violate the Section 2 result test. , the division does not adhere to the framework for the application of Section 2 in cases of refusal of votes as set out in the briefing. “
The legal battle also represents a major test of the right to vote for the Conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which has been expanded to 6-3 following the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in October.
The judges dealt a blow to the Voting Rights Act in 2013, when a majority of the Supreme Court overturned a provision of the law requiring states and provinces with a history of race-based voter discrimination, primarily in the South, to get federal approval before changing the voting laws.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in that case, Shelby County v Holder, paved the way for some states previously subject to the Voting Rights Act’s requirement to enact stricter voting laws, while others have drastically reduced the number of polling stations available to voters.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the contestation of Arizona’s laws in early October, and a decision is expected in late June.