The new case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19-1257, concerned two kinds of voting restrictions in Arizona. One required election officials to discard ballots cast at the wrong precinct. The other made 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.”
The law made exceptions for family members, caregivers and election officials. The larger battle in the case was not whether the particular challenged restrictions should survive. The Biden administration, for instance, told the justices in an unusual letter that the Arizona measures did not violate Section 2.
But the letter disavowed the Trump administration’s interpretation of Section 2, which would have limited its availability to test the lawfulness of all sorts of voting restrictions. 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.”
Here's the opinion. Of course, it's 6 to 3.
Posts
7 comments:
Jeffrey writes:
This decision forces the DOJ to amend its much-ballyhooed lawsuit against the Georgia voting law as it flies in the face of what is now controlling Supreme Court precedent. My litigator instincts tell me that Georgia should answer the complaint immediately to preclude amendment by right (presumably, the DOJ anticipated this potentiality and has drafted something).
But this really does lay bare the level of politicization in the DOJ. There was no immediacy to bringing the Georgia suit, even if they believed it was meritorious, and there was a dead-on certainty that the Court was going to be releasing this decision within a fortnight, so why not wait to make sure its suit was legally viable? Politics. An anniversary of an opinion they didn't like. Ugh.
And on that note, we should recall that the political head of this political department is one Merrick Garland, the "moderate" would-be Associate Justice. We dodged a bullet. Thank you, Cocaine Mitch.
Mattman26 writes:
"Neither of the Arizona provisions at issue—requiring that ballots be cast at the right precinct to be counted, and limiting who can collect and deliver other people’s ballots—is a voting “restriction” in any meaningful sense of that term. Calling them “restrictions” is part of the left’s latest effort to undermine election integrity, and its long-ongoing effort to abuse the English language beyond all recognition."
Legal arguments get smuggled into the statement of facts.
Bruce writes:
What makes this case interesting is the case recently filed by the DOJ against the new GA election law modifications (USA v Georgia et al) by the Biden/Garland DOJ. I think that we now probably know the reason for the timing of filing the GA case - because Brnovich v DNC effectively eviscerates the DOJ’s case against GA, filed only six days earlier. If the DOJ case had been filed a week later, the GA judge hearing the case could have possibly imposed sanctions against GA, significant parts of their suit being frivolous, in view of Brnovich.
J writes:
“racial minorities “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” “
They do? How? You register to vote and you vote. It’s not hard. Especially given the vote-push from every direction delivered via the mass-entertainment-media establishment. Now with early voting, is there any excuse that makes sense?
The left throw down a declaration and they do not back it up.
Voting is one of the easiest things any individual can do.
To say that minorities have a difficult time voting, is itself demeaning and insulting … and racist.
Temujin writes:
The NYT declares in its headline that the Supreme Court upholds voting restrictions. What the Supreme Court upheld was Arizona's voting *standards.* The NYT stays on message that this is a case of restricting the right to vote. Words have meaning, and though this is a case of establishing standards, the NYT and the professional Left want you to believe that this is directed at restricting minority votes because they cannot be expected to carry IDs, figure out where their polling place is, show up a their polling place in the correct hours or on the correct days- even when it's multiple days, sign their own ballots, or know who to vote for, without Democratic operatives helping them do so.
This is appalling on so many levels, not the least of which is the continuous arrogant view of minorities from the Left, not as rational, thinking humans, but as children who simply don't understand and need help. It is altogether blatant racism in a way that frankly, sounds systemic- if I can use that word- on the Left . That 3 Supreme Court Justices saw this as restrictions to minority voting is disappointing. That any minorities still buy into this 'yes, we are helpless' theme is insanity.
Dave Begley writes: "I don’t know how ballot harvesting was ever legal. Massive cheating mechanism. One of the main flaws of CRT and the position of the Dems on this is that minorities all behave in a certain way. People act in a stereotypical way based upon their race. That’s Marxism repackaged with race being substituted for class. That’s why CRT is unAmerican."
Wilbur writes:
"The dissenters fail to identify a single individual who was harmed by these state legislative acts, i.e, a single person who was denied the right or opportunity to vote.
"I find it more than slightly notable that, as far as I can tell - and if I'm wrong someone please correct me - this was not a suit brought by any individual making these claims in his/her own regard. The "et alia" are described at BallotPedia, as "several arms of the Democratic Party". Doesn't that tell us something about the quality of the plaintiffs' claims, that they have to completely rely on statistical interpretation like it's a Section 1983 employment discrimination case?"
Post a Comment