Supreme Court rules against Democrats in restrictive voting rights case – warns against future challenges
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 against the Democratic National Committee, finding that the Arizona GOP's restrictive voting law does not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court ruled that a law banning so-called "ballot harvesting," collecting of ballots by a third party, is not illegal.
The Court also ruled that an Arizona law requiring ballots cast in the wrong precinct be thrown out is not illegal.
Democrats argued these laws were written with discriminatory intent and disadvantage minority voters.
The Court disagreed, also ruling that the laws were not drafted with discriminatory intent. The New York Times adds that the "decision, in what may be a test of the Voting Rights Act, suggested that challenges to many new measures making it harder to vote may not be successful.
The majority ruling was written by Justice Alito, with Justice Kagan writing the dissent. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined Kagan's dissent.
The case is Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and the Court's opinion is here.
Here's how NPR explains the ruling:
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has narrowed the only remaining section of 1965 Voting Rights Act — rendering the landm… https://t.co/g7lDKrrNA0— NPR (@NPR) 1625148857.0
- To End Systemic Racism, Ensure Systemic Equality ›
- Supreme Court weighs voting rights in a pivotal Arizona case ... ›
- If the Biden Administration Is Serious About Protecting Voting Rights ... ›
- Supreme Court surprises observers by refusing anti-LGBTQ florist's case — what's really going on? - Alternet.org ›
- Americans are more concerned about the impact of restrictive voting laws than voter fraud, poll shows - Alternet.org ›
- This is why a conservative Supreme Court is bad for America - Alternet.org ›
- Justice Alito's voting rights ruling is plunging the Supreme Court back to the segregation era - Alternet.org ›
- Election law expert clashes with Sen. Mike Lee over Justice Alito’s ruling in voting rights case - Alternet.org ›