In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that banned the practice of indiscriminate ballot harvesting and nullified any ballot cast in the wrong precinct. This was an important step to ensure that states can take reasonable steps to ensure the integrity of the vote within their state. This bolsters the efforts ongoing in Georgia to ensure the integrity of their elections. Three justices dissented claiming the law was racist and would undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley views this as a big win for a state’s right to determine election procedures. The guideposts laid out by Justice Alito will eliminate a lot of frivolous lawsuits. It gets rid of a lot of potential lawfare methods used to challenge efforts by states to deter voter fraud by the Left.
Georgia immediately jumps into the picture. The dismissal there almost writes itself. This is probably why the suit was filed when it was. This decision was anticipated (5-4 or 6-3) and it would have been seen as a fool’s errand to file after this decision was announced.
What were the issues presented in this case? There were two.
- Does Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the VRA?
- Does Arizona’s ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the VRA or the Fifteenth Amendment?
Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion and began by stressing that the Court was not announcing a test to govern all claims under Section 2 of the VRA. Rather, the Court was providing guideposts for consideration when analyzing election requirements.
Margot Cleveland over at the Federalist provided some succinct insights which I will be quoting from here:
The majority then focused on Section 2(b)’s statutory language, stressing that the process must be “equally open” and “open” means “without restrictions as to who may participate.” Continuing with the relevant statutory language, the court noted that “equal opportunity” is not a separate requirement but “helps to explain the meaning of equal openness,” with “openness” remaining the keystone.
Next, the Court focused on the “totality of circumstances” language and notes several important circumstances relevant to this inquiry, including: the size of the burden; the degree to which the voting rule departed from the standard in 1982 when Congress amended Section 2; the size of the disparity of the rule on minorities; the opportunities provided by the state’s entire voting system; and the strength of the state’s interests in the law.
Let’s pause here and talk about disparate impact. This has been a touchstone for much of the lawsuits that have been filed alleging discrimination. Sometimes laws that appear facially neutral can impact protected classes in ways that make it difficult to participate in a given activity.
In this case data had been collected from the 2016 election that showed that the out of precinct rule resulted in 99% of blacks voting in their assigned precinct along with 99% of Hispanics and 99% of native Americans. All of these are considered protected classes. The non-minority voters achieved a 99.5% record. Clearly, despite Justice Kagan’s dissent, there is no disparate impact here.
Incidentally this out-of-precinct rule had existed in Arizona since 1970 and is present in the rules for elections in a majority of states. It seems that the election reform bill in Arizona that prompted this lawsuit, was seen as an opportunity by the Democrats to further weaken election safeguards.
Cleveland noted:
“Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting’” the Court explained. Further, “the State makes accurate precinct information available to all voters,” and has “made extensive efforts to reduce their impact on the number of valid votes ultimately cast.” And any disparity based on race is minor, the Court noted, in upholding the provision.
The court went on to uphold the provision prohibiting unlimited third-party ballot harvesting. This was seen as a valid means of protecting the secret ballot and preventing various forms of election and ballot fraud. All of this is well within a state’s purview under the Constitution.
The Court also tossed aside the idea that partisanship in parliamentary debate is equivalent to implying a discriminatory intent. In essence, the Court said that one must prove discriminatory intent.
Stepping aside for a moment to look at one aspect of Justice Kagan’s dissent. Kagan said that the law created “a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities.” The numbers above speak for themselves. However, this is an old canard that shows just how racist the Democrats and Justice Kagan are. It implies that minorities are unable to bear the burdens of voting under the laws that apply to whites. They cannot get and keep an ID. They cannot figure out where to go to vote. Etc.
This decision follows the powers laid out in the Constitution. Because of this, the Democrats and the Avatar in the White House are beside themselves. The Avatar issued a statement (I wonder who wrote it as it is clear that Biden’s mental capabilities continue to erode).
“I am deeply disappointed in today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court that undercuts the Voting Rights Act, and upholds what Justice Kagan called ‘a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities.’”
I am a little surprised that Biden did not have a legendary gaffe while admitting that this was making it more difficult to cheat. We all remember him saying that he had the greatest election fraud team in history before the election. Then again this was a written statement.
Keep in mind what the Democrats had in mind here (and which they will undoubtedly try to pursue through other means). They are trying to overturn a state’s constitutional power to determine the manner in which elections are conducted. This is what HR 1 and S 1 are all about. A ruling in their favor here would have gone a long way toward achieving that goal. They want to install the DOJ Civil Rights division as rules makers for all the states. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 and she appointed three justices. We could have kissed our country goodbye.
I am sure this will revive the calls to pack the court. The Democrats see their chances at permanent power slowly slipping away.
Now states need to move forward with applying the lessons learned here to make elections free, fair and secure.
One state that has already acted is Arizona. The audit is still alive and well. Rumors are that there are serious problems with ballot harvesting and illegally cast votes. This Supreme Court ruling should have a big impact on the report that is produced. If it had gone the other way, then ballot harvesting would be legal and ballots cast that way would be also.
It’s time to get some popcorn.