The SCOTUS agreed that Democrats violated the Voting Rights Act, according to CNBC.
Native American, Hispanic and Black voters were allegedly discriminated against.
“Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting.’”
“A policy that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies — minority and non-minority alike — is unlikely to render a system unequally open.”
“Limiting the classes of persons who may handle early ballots to those less likely to have ulterior motives deters potential fraud and improves voter confidence.”
“What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses,” Kagan stated.
“What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.’”
“And what is a ‘mere inconvenience’ or ‘usual burden’ anyway? The drafters of the Voting Rights Act understood that ‘social and historical conditions,’ including disparities in education, wealth, and employment, often affect opportunities to vote.”
“What does not prevent one citizen from casting a vote might prevent another.”
“Democrats were attempting to make Arizona ballots less secure for political gain, and the Court saw right through their partisan lies.”
“In Arizona and across the nation, states know best how to manage their own elections,” McDaniel stated.
“The court’s decision adopts a standard for proving violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that is unduly cramped and at odds with the law’s intent of eradicating all voting practices that are racially discriminatory in their effects on voting opportunity, whether blunt or subtle.”
“Today is a win for election integrity safeguards in Arizona and across the country.”
“Fair elections are the cornerstone of our republic, and they start with rational laws that protect both the right to vote and the accuracy of the results.”
The full appeals court said in a ruling last year that the out-of-precinct policy had a discriminatory impact on Native American, Hispanic and Black voters in Arizona. With regard to the ballot collection law, the court said that the circumstances “cumulatively and unmistakably revealed” that racial bias was responsible for its enactment.
Alito was joined in the majority by the five other justices appointed by Republican presidents: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s three Democratic appointees, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.
Alito wrote that neither law had a large effect on the openness of elections to all voters. Under Arizona law, he wrote, it was generally “very easy to vote.”